EU: E-evidence: "the Parliament has moved substantially towards the Council position"


EU institutions have been discussion new rules to ease cross-border gathering of evidence for use in criminal investigations and judicial proceedings since 2018. A letter to the Council from the MEP responsible for the file says that "the Parliament has moved substantially towards the Council position," dropping a number of its initial demands. We are also making public the latest trilogue document on European production and preservation orders, showing the positions of the different institutions and a Council progress report.

Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.

Letter from Birgit Sippel MEP to the Council: EP compromise package on the e-evidence package (in Council doc. 6323/22, LIMITE, 23 February 2022, pdf):

"As you know, in the framework of the ongoing trilogue negotiations, the European Parliament submitted a comprehensive proposal for a compromise package on 20 December 2021... With this package, the Parliament has moved substantially towards the Council position by dropping its original requests for notification for information purposes for European Preservation Orders, as well as for notification, with grounds for refusal, for European Production orders on subscriber data and further identifiers. Furthermore, we demonstrated a lot of flexibility on other aspects of the e-evidence package, with regard to the Directive, the central authority introduced by the Council, deadlines or provisions on conflicts of laws with third countries, to only name a few."

Proposition de règlement relatif aux injonctions européennes de productionet de conservation de preuves électroniques en matière pénale - tableau 4 colonnes (Council doc. 6487/22, LIMITE, 23 February 2022, pdf):

"Les délégations trouveront en pièce jointe le tableau 4 colonnes relatif à la proposition de règlement mentionnée en objet."

Presidency progress report: Rapport sur l'état des travaux (Council doc. 6322/22, LIMITE, 18 February 2022, pdf):

"Cependant, des différences substantielles demeurent entre les positions des législateurs, notamment en ce qui concerne les règles relatives au système de notification des injonctions. Ces différences ont mené à une absence d’avancée significative depuis plusieurs mois, le dernier trilogue politique ayant eu lieu en juillet 2021."

Image: Philip Dygeus, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Our work is only possible with your support.
Become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.


Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.

Report error