digital evidence; comparative law; cooperation of service providers; data retention; data categories; legal remedies; service providers; e-Evidence Regulation; encryption; cooperation duties; territoriality
Abstract :
[en] The objective of this chapter is to comparatively examine the national legislation in EU Member States in order to reveal common patterns and differences in legal rules and their practical application with respect to gathering digital evidence for the purpose of criminal investigations. The study is essentially based on the information provided in the preceding book chapters, covering seven national legal systems selected for this research: Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, and Spain. The comparative analysis does not only investigate the rules on access to digital evidence, but also their broader legislative context. Indeed, before analysing how data can be obtained, it is important to understand the legal terminology and categorisations used in the different legal systems, as well as the national rules on data retention in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU.
Research Center/Unit :
Cité - ULiège
Disciplines :
Metalaw, Roman law, history of law & comparative law Criminal law & procedure
Author, co-author :
Tosza, Stanislaw; Unilu - Université du Luxembourg [LU]
Franssen, Vanessa ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Droit pénal et procédure pénale ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Cité
Language :
English
Title :
A Comparative Analysis of National Law and Practices: Unravelling Differences in View of EU-Wide Solutions
Publication date :
08 January 2025
Main work title :
The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Investigations
Author, co-author :
Franssen, Vanessa ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Droit pénal et procédure pénale ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Cité
Tosza, Stanislaw; Unilu - Université du Luxembourg [LU]
Publisher :
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
ISBN/EAN :
9781009049771
Collection name :
Cambridge Law Handbooks
Pages :
423-454
Peer reviewed :
Editorial reviewed
Name of the research project :
The cooperation of ICT companies in criminal investigations Cross-border gathering of digital evidence: Mutual legal assistance, its shortcomings and remedies
Funders :
F.R.S.-FNRS - Fund for Scientific Research Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions ULiège - University of Liège
Funding number :
CDR J.0293.17; postdoctoral grant BeIPD-COFUND
Funding text :
This book publication is the outcome of two converging research projects. The first project, entitled “The cooperation of ICT companies in criminal investigations”, was funded by the F.R.S.-FNRS (research grant CDR J.0293.17) and the University of Liège with Vanessa Franssen as the Principle Investigator. The second research project, entitled “Cross-border gathering of digital evidence: Mutual legal assistance, its shortcomings and remedies”, was co-funded by the European Commission (Marie Curie, FP7 people funding) and the University of Liège (postdoctoral grant BeIPD-COFUND) with Stanisław Tosza as the Principle Investigator.
Michael Bohlander, Principles of German Criminal Procedure, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Hart, 2021), 146-163.
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for Electronic Evidence in Criminal Matters, COM/2018/225 final-2018/0108 (COD), 17 April 2018
European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Harmonised Rules on the Appointment of Legal Representatives for the Purpose of Gathering Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, [2018] COM/2018/226 final-2018/0107 (COD), 17 April 2018.
European Commission, Non-paper: Progress Report Following the Conclusions of the Council of the European Union on Improving Criminal Justice in Cyberspace, 15072/16, Brussels, 2 December 2016, p. 4.
V. Franssen and S. Tosza, 'Vers plus de droits pour le justiciable sur internet? Un nouveau cadre légal pour lutter contre la criminalité dans la société de l'information', in V. Franssen and A. Masset (eds.), Les droits du justiciable face à la justice pénale. (Limai: Anthémis, 2017), 223.
V. Franssen, 'Cross-Border Gathering of Electronic Evidence in the EU: Toward More Direct Cooperation under the e-Evidence Regulation', in V. Mitsilegas, M. Bergstrom and T. Quintel (eds.), Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law, 2nd ed. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2024), 193.
B. Flumian and V. Franssen, 'Le nouveau cadre légal en matière de conservation des données électroniques: Old wine in new bottles" pour les autorités judiciaires?', in V. Franssen and A. Masset (eds.), Le droit pénal et la procedure pénale en constante évolution. (Liège: Anthémis, 2022), 323.
SIRIUS, SIRIUS EU Digital Evidence Situation Report. (The Hague: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), 2022), 53-54.
O. Lynskey, 'Joined Cases C-293/12 and 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly', European Law Blog, 8 April 2014, https://europeanlawblog.eu/2014/04/08/joined-cases-c-293i2-and-594i2-digital-rights-ireland-and-seitlinger-and-others-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
J. Sajfert, 'Bulk Data Interception/Retention Judgments of the CJEU-A Victory and a Defeat for Privacy', European Law Blog, 26 October 2020, https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/10/26/bulk-data-interception-retention-judgments-of-the-cjeu-a-victory-and-a-defeat-for-privacy/
C. Dupont, V. Cilli, E. Omersa et al., Study on the Retention of Electronic Communications Non-content Data for Law Enforcement Purposes: Final Report. (Milieu Study) (Brussels, Publications Office, 2020), 94-97, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/384802
A. Juszczak and E. Sason, 'Recalibrating Data Retention in the EU: The Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU on Data Retention-Is This the End or Is This the Beginning?' (2021) Eucrim, s. IV.4, https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2021-020.
S. Tosza, 'The E-Evidence Package Is Adopted: End of a Saga or Beginning of a New One?' (2023) 2 European Data Protection Law Review. 163, 171-172
