Cross-border Gathering of Electronic Evidence in the EU: Toward More Direct Cooperation under the e-Evidence Regulation

Franssen, Vanessa

doi:10.4337/9781800886438.00016

No full text

Contribution to collective works (Parts of books)

Cross-border Gathering of Electronic Evidence in the EU: Toward More Direct Cooperation under the e-Evidence Regulation

Franssen, Vanessa

2024 • In Mitsilegas, Valsamis; Bergström, Maria; Quintel, Teresa (Eds.) Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law

Editorial reviewed

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/308602

DOI
10.4337/9781800886438.00016

Files (0)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

No document available.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

digital evidence; cross-border cooperation; criminal procedure; EU criminal law; service providers; European production order; European preservation order; data retention; European investigation order; Cybercrime Convention; data protection; U.S.-EU CLOUD Act Agreement; fundamental rights; mutual legal assistance

Research Center/Unit :

Cité - ULiège

Disciplines :

European & international law
Criminal law & procedure

Author, co-author :

Franssen, Vanessa ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Droit pénal et procédure pénale

Language :

English

Title :

Cross-border Gathering of Electronic Evidence in the EU: Toward More Direct Cooperation under the e-Evidence Regulation

Publication date :

December 2024

Main work title :

Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law

Author, co-author :

Bergström, Maria; University of Uppsala [SE]

Quintel, Teresa; UM - University of Maastricht [NL]

Editor :

Mitsilegas, Valsamis; University of Liverpool [GB]

Publisher :

Edward Elgar, United Kingdom

Edition :

Pages :

183-210

Peer reviewed :

Editorial reviewed

Available on ORBi :

since 10 November 2023

Statistics

Number of views

229 (19 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

0 (0 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

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) (Proposed Regulation), 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 (Proposed Directive).
J. Clough, Principles of Cybercrime (Cambridge University Press 2015), p. 25.
M. McGuire and S. Dowling, ‘Chapter 2: Cyber-enabled crimes–fraud and theft’ (2013) in Cyber crime: A review of the evidence, UK Home Office Research Report 75; UK Crown Prosecution Office, Cyber/online crime, available at https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/cyber-online-crime.
S. Tosza, ‘Gathering Cross-Border Digital Evidence: Mutual Legal Assistance, Its Shortcomings and Remedies’ in V. Franssen and D. Flore (eds), Société numérique et droit pénal. Belgique, France, Europe (Brussels, Bruylant 2019), p. 277.
S. Tosza, ‘All evidence is equal, but electronic evidence is more equal than any other: the relation between the New Journal of European Criminal Law 161, 163–4
M. Giacometti, ‘Collecte transfrontalière de preuves numériEuropean Investigation Order and the European Production Order’ (2020) 11(2) ques selon le point de vue belge. La décision d’enquête européenne, un moyen approprié?’ in V. Franssen and D. Flore (eds), Société numérique et droit pénal. Belgique, France, Europe (Brussels, Bruylant 2019), pp. 296–7.
J.A. Espina Ramos, ‘The European Investigation Order and its relationship with other judicial cooperation instruments establishing rules on the scope and possibilities of application’ (2019) 1 Eucrim 53 and note 2.
V. Franssen, ‘The Belgian Internet Investigatory Powers Act–a model to pursue at European level?’ (2017) 4 European Data Protection Law Review 534.
V. Franssen, ‘The European Commission’s E-evidence Proposal: Toward an EU-wide Obligation for Service Providers to Cooperate with Law Enforcement’, European Law Blog, 12 October 2018, available at https://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/10/12/the-european-commissions-e-evidence-proposal-toward-an-eu-wide-obligation-for-service-providers-to-cooperate-with-law-enforcement/.
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).
European Commission, Improving cross-border access to electronic evidence: Findings from the expert process and suggested way forward, Non-paper (Brussels, 22 May 2017).
Council, Conclusions of the 3546th Council Meeting, Justice and Home Affairs, 10136/17 (Luxembourg, 8–9 June 2017).
Statement of the Article 29 Working Party, Data protection and privacy aspects of cross-border access to electronic evidence (Brussels, 29 November 2017), p. 1
E. Sellier and A. Weyembergh, Criminal procedural laws across the European Union–A comparative analysis, Study commissioned by the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament (2018), p. 31
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/LIBE/DV/2018/
M. Böse, An assessment of the Commission’s proposals on electronic evidence, Study commissioned by the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament (2018), pp. 36–7, available at 10-10/IPOL_STU2018604977_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604
S. Carrera, M. Stefan and V. Mitsilegas, Cross-border data access in criminal proceedings and the future of digital justice. Navigating the current legal framework, and exploring ways forward within the EU and across the Atlantic, Report of a CEPS and QMUL Task Force (Brussels, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), 2020), pp. 49–50 and 58, and the references given there.989/IPOL_STU(2018)604989_EN.pdf
V. Mitsilegas, ‘The privatization of mutual trust in Europe’s area of criminal justice: the case of e-evidence’ (2018) 25(3) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 264–5.
V. Franssen, A. Werding, A.L. Claes and F. Verbruggen, ‘La mise en oeuvre du Parquet européen en Belgique: Quelques enjeux et propositions de solution’ in C. Chevallier-Govers and A. Weyembergh (eds), La création du Parquet européen: simple évolution ou révolution au sein de l’espace judiciaire européen? (Brussels, Larcier 2021) p. 144 et seq.
V. Franssen, ‘The EPPO: From Conundrum of Laws to Catalyst for Approximation of National Criminal Procedure’, Presentation at a research seminar organized by MCEL and Glawnet, Maastricht University, 7 December 2022.
M. Corhay, ‘It is a Long Way to … E-Evidence: EU Reforms in the Collection of Electronic Evidence–Part 1’, Information Law and Policy Centre Blog, 24 January 2023, available at https://infolawcentre.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2023/01/26/it-is-a-long-way-to-e-evidence-eu-reforms-in-the-collection-of-electronic-evidence-part-1/.
Council, Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European production and preservation orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters–general approach, 15292/18 (Brussels, 12 December 2018).
European Parliament, LIBE Committee, Draft Report on the 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)0225–C8-0155/2018–2018/0108(COD)) (EP Draft Report), 24 October 2019, available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-PR-642987_EN.pdf.
T. Christakis, ‘E-Evidence in the EU Parliament: Basic Features of Birgit Sippel’s Draft Report’, European Law Blog, 21 January 2020, available at https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/01/21/e-evidence-in-the-eu-parliament-basic-features-of-birgit-sippels-draft-report/.
European Parliament, Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (EP Report), A9-0256/2020, 11 December 2020.
G. Forlani, ‘The E-evidence package: the happy ending of a long negotiation saga’ (2023) Eucrim, available at https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2023-013.
Council of the EU, ‘Electronic evidence: Council confirms agreement with the European Parliament on new rules to improve cross-border access to e-evidence’, press release, 25 January 2023, available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/01/25/electronic-evidence-council-confirms-agreement-with-the-european-parliament-on-new-rules-to-improve-cross-border-access-to-e-evidence/.
S. Tosza, ‘The E-Evidence Package is Adopted: End of a Saga or Beginning of a New One?’ (2023) 9(2) European Data Protection Law Review 163, at 169
M. Corhay, ‘Private life, personal data protection and the role of service providers: the EU e-Evidence Proposal’ (2021) 6(1) European Papers 442
V. Franssen, ‘Droit pénal et numérique: vers un nouveau paradigme?’ (2018) 1 Revue de la faculté de droit de l’Université de Liège 195–203.
D. Brodowski, ‘Digital Evidence and the Cooperation of Service Providers in Germany’ in V. Franssen and S. Tosza (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters (Cambridge University Press, 2024), p. 306.
Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY), T-CY Guidance Note #10, Production order for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), (Strasbourg, 1 March 2017).
Council of Europe, Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence, ETS No. 224, Strasbourg, 12 April 2022 (Second Additional Protocol).
V. Franssen and O. Leroux, ‘Recherche policière et judiciaire sur internet: analyse critique du nouveau cadre législatif belge’ in V. Franssen and D. Flore (eds), Société numérique et droit penal. Belgique, France, Europe (Brussels, Bruylant/Larcier 2019) pp. 202–5
M. Rogalski, ‘The Gathering of Digital Evidence and Cooperation of Service Providers in Poland’ in V. Franssen and S. Tosza (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters (Cambridge University Press, 2024), p. 384.
European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Opinion 7/2019 on Proposals regarding European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (2019), p. 9, available at https://edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/19-11-06_opinion_on_e_evidence:proposals_en.pdf.
V. Franssen and C. Van den Heyning, ‘Belgium’s New Data Retention Legislation: Third Time Lucky, or Three Strikes and You’re Out?’, in E. Kosta and I. Kamala (eds), Data Retention in Europe and Beyond: Law and Policy in the Aftermath of an Invalidated Directive (Oxford, Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
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 (Limal, Anthemis 2017), p. 223.
EDPS, Opinion 7/2019, above n. 69, at 8–9.
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’) (2020) (Brussels, Publications Office), pp. 94–7, available at 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, section IV.4, available at https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2021-020.
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 procédure pénale en constante évolution (Liège, Anthemis 2022), pp. 347–8.
EuroISPA, Proposal for a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (2018), p. 2, available at https://www.euroispa.org/wp-content/uploads/1806_EuroISPA_e-evidence:position_paper.pdf.
P. Geelhoed and J. Ouwerkerk, ‘The Role and Position of Public Prosecutors in the Application of the European Investigation Order. A View from the Netherlands’ in M. Luchtman et al. (eds), Of Swords and Shields: Due Process and Crime Control in Times of Globalization–Liber amicorum prof. dr. J.A.E. Vervaele (The Hague, Eleven 2023), pp. 434–7.
Center for Democracy and Technology, CDT Recommendations for Improving the European Commission’s E-Evidence Proposals (2018), p. 6, available at https://cdt.org/insights/cdt-recommendations-for-improving-the-european-commissions-e-evidence-proposals/; EDPS, Opinion 7/2019, above n. 69, 12.
S. Tosza, ‘Internet service providers as law enforcers and adjudicators: a public role for private actors’ (2021) 43 Computer Law and Security Review 1, esp. 10–12
M. Corhay, ‘It is a Long Way to … E-Evidence: EU Reforms in the Collection of Electronic Evidence Part 2–The Role of Service Providers’, Information Law and Policy Centre Blog, 26 February 2023, available at https://infolawcentre.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2023/02/27/it-is-a-long-way-to-e-evidence-eu-reforms-in-the-collection-of-electronic-evidence-part-2-the-role-of-service-providers/.
T. Christakis, ‘From Mutual Trust to the Gordian Knot of Notifications. The EU E-Evidence Regulation and Directive’ in V. Franssen and S. Tosza (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters (Cambridge University Press, 2024), p. 173–99.
European Economic and Social Committee, Opinion on 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)) and 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 (COM(2018) 226 final–2018/0107(COD)) [2018] OJ C 367/88, pts 3.6–3.7.
M. Panzavolta, ‘Judicial Cooperation and the Right to an Effective Remedy’ in M. Luchtman et al. Of Swords and Shields: Due Process and Crime Control in Times of Globalization–Liber amicorum prof. dr. J.A.E. Vervaele (The Hague, Eleven 2023), pp. 366–7.(eds)
K. Ligeti, B. Garamvöglyi, A. Ondrejová and M. von Galen, ‘Admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings in the EU’ (2020) 3 Eucrim 201
European Law Institute (ELI), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on Mutual Admissibility of Evidence and Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Vienna, ELI 2023).
J. Daskal and A. Woods, ‘Cross-Border Data Requests: A Proposed Framework’, Just Security, 24 November 2015, available at https://www.justsecurity.org/27857/cross-border-data-requests-proposed-framework/.
V. Franssen and M. Corhay, ‘La fin de la saga Skype: les fournisseurs de services étrangers obligés de collaborer avec la justice belge en dépit des possibilités techniques et de leurs obligations en droit étranger’ (2019) 8 Revue de droit commercial belge 1014.
M. Corhay and V. Franssen, ‘Digital Evidence Gathering by U.S. Authorities and Cross-Border Cooperation with U.S. Based Service Providers’ in V. Franssen and S. Tosza (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters (Cambridge University Press, 2024), pp. 273–6 and 282.
P. Swire, ‘When does GDPR act as a blocking statute: The relevance of a lawful basis for transfer’, Cross-Border Data Forum, 4 November 2019, available at https://www.crossborde rdataforum.org/when-does-gdpr-act-as-a-blocking-statute-the-relevance-of-a-lawful-basis-for-transfer/
Center for Information Policy Leadership, The Time is Now: Why Modernising Transatlantic Cooperation on Cross-Border Law Enforcement Access to Electronic Evidence Should be a Priority, Op-ed, 18 October 2023, p. 3, available at https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/opinion/the-time-is-now-why-modernising-transatlantic-cooperation-on-cross-border-law-enforcement-access-to-electronic-evidence-should-be-a-priority/.
Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act of 2018, available at: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-oia/cloud-act-resources.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/836969/CS_USA_6.2019_Agreement_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_USA_on_Access_to_Electronic_Data_for_the_Purpose_of_Countering_Serious_Crime.pdf.
https://www.justice.gov/dag/page/file/1465616/download.
C. Kerry, ‘Will the New EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework Pass CJEU Scrutiny?’, Lawfare, 10 August 2023, available at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/will-the-new-eu-u.s.-data-privacy-framework-pass-cjeu-scrutiny.
M. Corhay, ‘L’extension de la recherche dans un système informatique: du droit belge à la Convention de Budapest sur la cybercriminalité’ (2020) 139 Journal des Tribunaux 133–41.
T.J. McIntyre and M.H. Murphy, ‘Accessing Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters: An Inadequate Irish Legal Framework’ in V. Franssen and S. Tosza (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters (Cambridge University Press, 2024), pp. 329–30.
S. Tosza and V. Franssen, ‘Comparative Analysis of National Law and Practices: Unravelling Differences in View of EU-wide Solutions’ in V. Franssen and S. Tosza (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters (Cambridge University Press, 2024), pp. 431–4.
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8281-2023-INIT/en/pdf.
A. Aguinaldo and P. de Hert, ‘Moving in the Right Direction for Transborder Access to Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters? The Council of Europe and the Second Additional Protocol Introducing Direct Cooperation Mechanisms’ in V. Franssen and S. Tosza (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Digital Evidence in Criminal Matters (Cambridge University Press, 2024), pp. 200–218.