Case C‑325/24, Bissilli, Judgment of 18 December 2025 (Third Chamber)

Directive 2014/41/EU – Material scope and concept of ‘investigative measure’ (Article 3) – Recourse to a different type of investigative measure (Article 10) – Grounds for non-recognition or non-execution and fundamental rights (Article 11) – Temporary transfer to the issuing State of the person held in custody for the purpose of carrying out an investigative measure (Article 22) – Hearing of the accused person by videoconference (Article 24).

• The judicial authority of a Member State may issue an EIO for the purposes of either the temporary transfer to its territory of a person in custody in another Member State, in order to hear that person as an accused person during his or her trial, or the organisation, by the authorities of the latter Member State, of a hearing by videoconference of that person in that same capacity during his or her trial, even if the execution of that measure also involves the appearance of that person at that trial, in so far as (i) that measure has an evidential objective and (ii) its execution does not go beyond what is necessary for the purpose of gathering evidence.
• An authority of a Member State cannot refuse to execute an EIO concerning the organisation, during the criminal trial, of a hearing by videoconference of the accused person on the sole ground that that measure would not be available in a similar domestic case.
• The fact that the ground for refusal provided for in Article 11(1)(f) cannot be relied on does not prevent the executing authority from refusing to execute an EIO on the basis on another ground for refusal provided for in the EIO Directive.
• An authority of a Member State is precluded from refusing to execute an EIO concerning the organisation, during a criminal trial, of a hearing by videoconference of the accused person solely based on general guidelines issued by that Member State without carrying out an examination which considers all the relevant circumstances of the case.