The key elements of the LIBE Committee’s compromise proposal on e-evidence: a critical overview through a fundamental rights lens

References

• Ambos, K. (2018). European criminal law. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biasiotti, M.-A. (2017). A proposed electronic evidence exchange across the European Union. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 14, 1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.14296/deeslr.v14i0.2337
   Google Scholar
• Böse, M. (2018). An assessment of the Commission’s proposals on electronic evidence. Study commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2018)604989
   Google Scholar
• Buono, L. (2016). Fighting cybercrime between legal challenges and practical difficulties: EU and national approaches. ERA Forum, 17, 343–353. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-016-0432-5
   Google Scholar
• Buono, L. (2019). The genesis of the European Union’s new proposed legal instrument(s) on e-evidence. Towards the EU Production and Preservation Orders. ERA Forum, 19, 307–312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0525-4
   Google Scholar
• Burchard, C. (2019). Europäische E-Evidence-Verordnung. Rechtsstaatlich defizitär, der Realität hinterher und langfristig konträr zu europäischen Interessen. ZRP, 52, 164–167.
   Google Scholar
• Christakis, T. (2020). E-Evidence in the EU Parliament: Basic Features of Birgit Sippel’s Draft Report. European Law Blog. https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/01/21/e-evidence-in-the-eu-parliament-basic-features-of-birgit-sippels-draft-report/
   Google Scholar
• CJEU. (2014). Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and others, Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238.
   Google Scholar
• CJEU. (2016). Tele2 Sverige and Watson, Joined Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970.
   Google Scholar
• CJEU. (2020). Privacy International v. Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Case C-623/17, ECLI:EU:C:2020:790.
   Google Scholar
• CJEU. (2020). Quadrature du Net and Others v. Premier ministre and Others, Joined Cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791.
   Google Scholar
• Clough, J. (2015). Principles of cybercrime (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• CoE Cybercrime Convention Committee. (2021). Second additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime on enhanced cooperation and disclosure of electronic evidence. Draft Protocol version 2. https://rm.coe.int/2nd-additional-protocol-budapest-convention-en/1680a2219c
   Google Scholar
• Depauw, S. (2018). Electronic evidence in criminal matters: How about e-evidence instruments 2.0? European Criminal Law Review, 8(1), 62–82. doi:https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2018-1-62
   Google Scholar
• Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32014L0041
   Google Scholar
• EDRi. (2018). EU “e-evidence” proposals turn service providers into judicial authorities. https://edri.org/our-work/eu-e-evidence-proposals-turn-service-providers-into-judicial-authorities/
   Google Scholar
• EDRi. (2020). “E-evidence”: Mixed results in the European Parliament. https://edri.org/our-work/e-evidence-mixed-results/
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2015). The European Agenda on Security. COM(2015) 185 final. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/default/files/e-library/documents/basic-documents/docs/eu_agenda_on_security_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2016). Non-paper: Progress Report following the Conclusions of the Council of the European Union on Improving Criminal Justice in Cyberspace. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15072-2016-REV-1/en/pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2017). Non-paper from the Commission services. Improving cross-border access to electronic evidence: Findings from the expert process and suggested way forward. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/default/files/docs/pages/20170522_non-paper_electronic_evidence_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2018a). 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). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2018%3A225%3AFIN
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2018b). 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). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0226
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2018c). Impact Assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters 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. SWD(2018) 118 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524129550845&uri=SWD:2018:118:FIN
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2019a). Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the participation in negotiations on a second Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (CETS No. 185). COM(2019) 71 final. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/recommendation_budapest_convention.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2019b). Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations in view of an agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on cross-border access to electronic evidence for judicial cooperation in criminal matters. COM(2019) 70 final. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/recommendation_council_decision_eu_us_e-evidence.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2020a). A Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU: Anticipate, prevent, protect, respond. COM(2020) 795 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2020:795:FIN
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2020b). EU Security Union Strategy. COM(2020) 605 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0605
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2020c). The EU’s cybersecurity strategy for the digital decade. JOIN(2020) 18 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ga/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020JC0018
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts. COM(2021) 206 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:206:FIN
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2016a). Joint statement of EU Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs and representatives of EU institutions on the terrorist attacks in Brussels on 22 March 2016. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/24/statement-on-terrorist-attacks-in-brussels-on-22-march/
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2016b). Council conclusions on improving criminal justice in cyberspace. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/24300/cyberspace-en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2017a). European Council meeting (22 and 23 June 2017) – Conclusions. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/23985/22-23-euco-final-conclusions.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2017b). Council Conclusions on the Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Resilience, deterrence and defence: Building strong cybersecurity for the EU. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31666/st14435en17.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2018). Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European production and preservation orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters – General approach. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15020-2018-INIT/en/pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Data Protection Board. (2018). Opinion 23/2018 on Commission proposals on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (Art. 70.1.b). https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/opinion-art-70/opinion-232018-commission-proposals-european-production_en
   Google Scholar
• European Data Protection Supervisor. (2019). Opinion on proposals regarding European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters. https://edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/19-11-06_opinion_on_e_evidence_proposals_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Judicial Network’s Working Group on E-Evidence. (2021). Conclusions of the 4th online meeting on the Proposal for a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters. https://www.statewatch.org/media/1867/eu-council-ejn-e-evidence-ep-position-paper-6035-21.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (2020). 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)). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0256_EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. (2019). 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)). Rapporteur: Birgit Sippel. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-PR-642987_EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Europol. (2020). Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment. https://www.europol.europa.eu/activities-services/main-reports/internet-organised-crime-threat-assessment
   Google Scholar
• Kaunert, K., & Léonard, S. (2019). The collective securitisation of terrorism in the European Union. West European Politics, 42(2), 261–277. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1510194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleijssen, J., & Perri, P. (2016). Cybercrime, evidence and territoriality: Issues and options. In M. Kuijer & W. Werner (Eds.), Netherlands yearbook of international law (pp. 147–173). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitsilegas, V. (2018). The privatisation of mutual trust in Europe’s area of criminal justice: The case of e-evidence. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 25(3), 263–265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X18792240
   Google Scholar
• Quattrocolo, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence, computational modeling and criminal proceedings. A framework for a European Legal Discussion. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Smuha, N. (2018). Towards the EU harmonization of access to cross-border e-evidence: Challenges for fundamental rights & consistency. European Criminal Law Review, 8(1), 83–115. doi:https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2018-1-83
   Google Scholar
• Tinoco-Pastrana, A. (2020). The proposal on electronic evidence in the European Union. Eucrim, 1, 46–50. doi:https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2020-004
   Google Scholar
• Tosza, S. (2020). All evidence is equal, but electronic evidence is more equal than any other: The relationship between the European Investigation Order and the European Production Order. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 11(2), 161–183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284420919802
   Google Scholar
• Vazquez Maymir, S. (2020). Anchoring the need to revise cross-border access to e-evidence. Internet Policy Review, 9(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.3.1495
   Google Scholar
• Wahl, T. (2021). New E-evidence legislation: Trilogue started – Criticism on EP stance. Eucrim. https://eucrim.eu/news/new-e-evidence-legislation-trilogue-started-critics-on-ep-stance/
   Google Scholar