BETA


2018/0108(COD) European production and preservation orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters

Progress: Awaiting committee decision

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead LIBE
Former Responsible Committee LIBE SIPPEL Birgit (icon: S&D S&D)
Committee Opinion IMCO
Former Committee Opinion IMCO
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 082-p1

Events

2018/12/07
   CSL - Council Meeting
2018/11/14
   DE_BUNDESRAT - Contribution
Documents
2018/10/12
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2018/10/12
   CSL - Council Meeting
2018/09/13
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2018/08/17
   CZ_SENATE - Contribution
Documents
2018/07/23
   ES_CONGRESS - Contribution
Documents
2018/05/31
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2018/05/24
   EP - Former Responsible Committee
2018/04/18
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2018/04/18
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2018/04/17
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to lay down the rules on the European Production and Preservation Orders under which a service provider offering services in the Union may be compelled to produce or preserve electronic evidence.

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure on an equal footing with the Council.

BACKGROUND: social media, webmail, messaging services and applications connect hundreds of millions of users to one another and generate significant benefits. However, they can also be misused as tools to commit crimes , including serious crimes such as terrorist attacks. When that happens, these services and apps are often the only place where investigators can find leads to determine who committed a crime and obtain evidence that can be used in court.

The Council Conclusions of 9 June 2016 underlined the increasing importance of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, and of protecting cyberspace from abuse and criminal activities for the benefit of economies and societies.

The current EU legal framework consists of Union cooperation instruments in criminal matters, inter alia, the Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (EIO Directive), and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union,

The European Parliament, in its resolution on the fight against cybercrime of 3 October 2017, highlighted the challenges that the currently fragmented legal framework can create for service providers seeking to comply with law enforcement requests and calling on the Commission to put forward a Union legal framework for electronic evidence, including safeguards for the rights and freedoms of all concerned

By introducing European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders, the proposal makes it easier to secure and gather electronic evidence for criminal proceedings stored or held by service providers in another jurisdiction. The new instrument will not replace the EIO for obtaining electronic evidence but provides an additional tool for authorities. There may be situations, for example when several investigative measures need to be carried out in the executing Member State, where the EIO may be the preferred choice for public authorities. Creating a new instrument for electronic evidence is a better alternative than amending the EIO Directive because of the specific challenges inherent in obtaining electronic evidence which do not affect the other investigative measures covered by the EIO Directive.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: four main policy options were considered besides the baseline scenario of taking no action. The preferred solution is a legislative instrument for a European Production Order and measures to improve access to databases that provide subscriber information.

CONTENT: the proposed Regulation introduces binding European Production and Preservation Orders. Both Orders need to be issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member State. Such Orders may only be issued if a similar measure is available for the same criminal offence in a comparable domestic situation in the issuing State. Both Orders can be served on providers of electronic communication services, social networks, online marketplaces, other hosting service providers and providers of internet infrastructure such as IP address and domain name registries, or on their legal representatives.

European Production Order : this will allow a judicial authority in one Member State to request electronic data that are necessary as evidence in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings (such as emails, text or messages in apps) directly from a service provider offering services in the Union and established or represented in another Member State, regardless of the location of data.

The proposal introduces mandatory deadlines for addressees. The normal deadline is 10 days, while authorities may set a shorter deadline where justified. Moreover, in emergency cases , defined as a situation where there is an imminent threat to life or physical integrity of a person or to a critical infrastructure, the deadline is 6 hours (as compared to 120 days for the existing European Investigation Order or 10 months for a Mutual Legal Assistance procedure).

European Production Orders to produce transactional or content data (as opposed to subscriber and access data) may only be issued for criminal offences punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least 3 years , or for specific cyber-dependent, cyber-enabled or terrorism-related crimes.

European Preservation Order : this will allow a judicial authority in one Member State to oblige a service provider offering services in the Union and established or represented in another Member State to prevent data from being deleted and preserve specific data to enable the authority to request this information later via mutual legal assistance, a European Investigation Order or a European Production Order.

The European Preservation Order only allows preserving data that is already stored at the time of receipt of the Order, not the access to data at a future point in time after the receipt of the Order.

Safeguards: the proposal sets out procedural safeguards as well as rules on data protection. A judicial authority must validate Orders. Personal data covered by this proposal may only be processed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation) and Regulation (EU) 2016/680 (Data Protection Directive for Police and Criminal Justice Authorities).

For the serving and execution of orders under this instrument, authorities should rely on the legal representative designated by the service providers. The Commission has presented a proposal to ensure that such legal representatives are effectively designated.

Documents

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

activities
  • date
    2018-04-17T00:00:00
    docs
    • url
      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2018/0225/COM_COM(2018)0225_EN.pdf
      text
      • PURPOSE: to lay down the rules on the European Production and Preservation Orders under which a service provider offering services in the Union may be compelled to produce or preserve electronic evidence.

        PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

        ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure on an equal footing with the Council.

        BACKGROUND: social media, webmail, messaging services and applications connect hundreds of millions of users to one another and generate significant benefits. However, they can also be misused as tools to commit crimes, including serious crimes such as terrorist attacks. When that happens, these services and apps are often the only place where investigators can find leads to determine who committed a crime and obtain evidence that can be used in court.

        The Council Conclusions of 9 June 2016 underlined the increasing importance of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, and of protecting cyberspace from abuse and criminal activities for the benefit of economies and societies.

        The current EU legal framework consists of Union cooperation instruments in criminal matters, inter alia, the Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (EIO Directive), and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union,

        The European Parliament, in its resolution on the fight against cybercrime of 3 October 2017, highlighted the challenges that the currently fragmented legal framework can create for service providers seeking to comply with law enforcement requests and calling on the Commission to put forward a Union legal framework for electronic evidence, including safeguards for the rights and freedoms of all concerned

        By introducing European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders, the proposal makes it easier to secure and gather electronic evidence for criminal proceedings stored or held by service providers in another jurisdiction. The new instrument will not replace the EIO for obtaining electronic evidence but provides an additional tool for authorities. There may be situations, for example when several investigative measures need to be carried out in the executing Member State, where the EIO may be the preferred choice for public authorities. Creating a new instrument for electronic evidence is a better alternative than amending the EIO Directive because of the specific challenges inherent in obtaining electronic evidence which do not affect the other investigative measures covered by the EIO Directive.

        IMPACT ASSESSMENT: four main policy options were considered besides the baseline scenario of taking no action. The preferred solution is a legislative instrument for a European Production Order and measures to improve access to databases that provide subscriber information.

        CONTENT: the proposed Regulation introduces binding European Production and Preservation Orders. Both Orders need to be issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member State. Such Orders may only be issued if a similar measure is available for the same criminal offence in a comparable domestic situation in the issuing State. Both Orders can be served on providers of electronic communication services, social networks, online marketplaces, other hosting service providers and providers of internet infrastructure such as IP address and domain name registries, or on their legal representatives.

        European Production Order: this will allow a judicial authority in one Member State to request electronic data that are necessary as evidence in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings (such as emails, text or messages in apps) directly from a service provider offering services in the Union and established or represented in another Member State, regardless of the location of data.

        The proposal introduces mandatory deadlines for addressees. The normal deadline is 10 days, while authorities may set a shorter deadline where justified. Moreover, in emergency cases, defined as a situation where there is an imminent threat to life or physical integrity of a person or to a critical infrastructure, the deadline is 6 hours (as compared to 120 days for the existing European Investigation Order or 10 months for a Mutual Legal Assistance procedure).

        European Production Orders to produce transactional or content data (as opposed to subscriber and access data) may only be issued for criminal offences punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least 3 years, or for specific cyber-dependent, cyber-enabled or terrorism-related crimes.

        European Preservation Order: this will allow a judicial authority in one Member State to oblige a service provider offering services in the Union and established or represented in another Member State to prevent data from being deleted and preserve specific data to enable the authority to request this information later via mutual legal assistance, a European Investigation Order or a European Production Order.

        The European Preservation Order only allows preserving data that is already stored at the time of receipt of the Order, not the access to data at a future point in time after the receipt of the Order.

        Safeguards: the proposal sets out procedural safeguards as well as rules on data protection. A judicial authority must validate Orders. Personal data covered by this proposal may only be processed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation) and Regulation (EU) 2016/680 (Data Protection Directive for Police and Criminal Justice Authorities).

        For the serving and execution of orders under this instrument, authorities should rely on the legal representative designated by the service providers. The Commission has presented a proposal to ensure that such legal representatives are effectively designated.

      title
      COM(2018)0225
      type
      Legislative proposal published
      celexid
      CELEX:52018PC0225:EN
    body
    EC
    commission
    • DG
      Commissioner
      KING Julian
    type
    Legislative proposal published
  • date
    2018-05-31T00:00:00
    body
    EP
    type
    Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    committees
commission
  • body
    EC
    dg
    Justice and Consumers
    commissioner
    KING Julian
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
date
    committees/0
    body
    EP
    responsible
    False
    committee_full
    Internal Market and Consumer Protection
    committee
    IMCO
    committees/1
    type
    Former Responsible Committee
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    committee
    LIBE
    date
    • 2018-05-24T00:00:00
    rapporteur
    • name
      SIPPEL Birgit
      group
      Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats
      abbr
      S&D
    committees/1
    body
    EP
    shadows
    responsible
    True
    committee
    LIBE
    date
    2018-05-24T00:00:00
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    rapporteur
    • group
      S&D
      name
      SIPPEL Birgit
    committees/2
    type
    Committee Opinion
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Internal Market and Consumer Protection
    committee
    IMCO
    date
      committees/3
      type
      Former Committee Opinion
      body
      EP
      associated
      False
      committee_full
      Internal Market and Consumer Protection
      committee
      IMCO
      date
        council
        • body
          CSL
          type
          Council Meeting
          council
          Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
          meeting_id
          3661
          url
          http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3661*&MEET_DATE=07/12/2018
          date
          2018-12-07T00:00:00
        • body
          CSL
          type
          Council Meeting
          council
          Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
          meeting_id
          3641
          url
          http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3641*&MEET_DATE=12/10/2018
          date
          2018-10-12T00:00:00
        docs
        • date
          2018-04-18T00:00:00
          docs
          type
          Document attached to the procedure
          body
          EC
        • date
          2018-04-18T00:00:00
          docs
          type
          Document attached to the procedure
          body
          EC
        • date
          2018-07-23T00:00:00
          docs
          • url
            http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2018)0225
            title
            COM(2018)0225
          type
          Contribution
          body
          ES_CONGRESS
        • date
          2018-08-17T00:00:00
          docs
          • url
            http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2018)0225
            title
            COM(2018)0225
          type
          Contribution
          body
          CZ_SENATE
        • date
          2018-09-13T00:00:00
          docs
          • url
            http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2018)0225
            title
            COM(2018)0225
          type
          Contribution
          body
          PT_PARLIAMENT
        • date
          2018-11-14T00:00:00
          docs
          • url
            http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2018)0225
            title
            COM(2018)0225
          type
          Contribution
          body
          DE_BUNDESRAT
        events
        • date
          2018-04-17T00:00:00
          type
          Legislative proposal published
          body
          EC
          docs
          summary
        • date
          2018-05-31T00:00:00
          type
          Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
          body
          EP
        • date
          2018-10-12T00:00:00
          type
          Debate in Council
          body
          CSL
          docs
          • url
            http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3641*&MEET_DATE=12/10/2018
            title
            3641
        links
        other
        • body
          EC
          dg
          commissioner
          KING Julian
        otherinst
        • name
          European Economic and Social Committee
        procedure/Mandatory consultation of other institutions
        European Economic and Social Committee
        procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
        Old
        LIBE/8/12854
        New
        • LIBE/9/00283
        procedure/other_consulted_institutions
        European Economic and Social Committee
        procedure/subject
        Old
        • 2.40 Free movement of services, freedom to provide
        • 3.30.25 International information networks and society, internet
        • 7.40.04 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
        New
        2.40
        Free movement of services, freedom to provide
        3.30.25
        International information networks and society, internet
        7.40.04
        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
        activities/1
        date
        2018-05-31T00:00:00
        body
        EP
        type
        Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
        committees
        committees/1/shadows
        • group
          EPP
          name
          MELO Nuno
        • group
          ECR
          name
          DALTON Daniel
        • group
          ALDE
          name
          IN 'T VELD Sophia
        • group
          GUE/NGL
          name
          ERNST Cornelia
        • group
          Verts/ALE
          name
          FRANZ Romeo
        • group
          EFD
          name
          CORRAO Ignazio
        • group
          ENF
          name
          VILIMSKY Harald
        procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
        LIBE/8/12854
        procedure/stage_reached
        Old
        Preparatory phase in Parliament
        New
        Awaiting committee decision
        activities/0/docs/0/text
        • PURPOSE: to lay down the rules on the European Production and Preservation Orders under which a service provider offering services in the Union may be compelled to produce or preserve electronic evidence.

          PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

          ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure on an equal footing with the Council.

          BACKGROUND: social media, webmail, messaging services and applications connect hundreds of millions of users to one another and generate significant benefits. However, they can also be misused as tools to commit crimes, including serious crimes such as terrorist attacks. When that happens, these services and apps are often the only place where investigators can find leads to determine who committed a crime and obtain evidence that can be used in court.

          The Council Conclusions of 9 June 2016 underlined the increasing importance of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, and of protecting cyberspace from abuse and criminal activities for the benefit of economies and societies.

          The current EU legal framework consists of Union cooperation instruments in criminal matters, inter alia, the Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (EIO Directive), and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union,

          The European Parliament, in its resolution on the fight against cybercrime of 3 October 2017, highlighted the challenges that the currently fragmented legal framework can create for service providers seeking to comply with law enforcement requests and calling on the Commission to put forward a Union legal framework for electronic evidence, including safeguards for the rights and freedoms of all concerned

          By introducing European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders, the proposal makes it easier to secure and gather electronic evidence for criminal proceedings stored or held by service providers in another jurisdiction. The new instrument will not replace the EIO for obtaining electronic evidence but provides an additional tool for authorities. There may be situations, for example when several investigative measures need to be carried out in the executing Member State, where the EIO may be the preferred choice for public authorities. Creating a new instrument for electronic evidence is a better alternative than amending the EIO Directive because of the specific challenges inherent in obtaining electronic evidence which do not affect the other investigative measures covered by the EIO Directive.

          IMPACT ASSESSMENT: four main policy options were considered besides the baseline scenario of taking no action. The preferred solution is a legislative instrument for a European Production Order and measures to improve access to databases that provide subscriber information.

          CONTENT: the proposed Regulation introduces binding European Production and Preservation Orders. Both Orders need to be issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member State. Such Orders may only be issued if a similar measure is available for the same criminal offence in a comparable domestic situation in the issuing State. Both Orders can be served on providers of electronic communication services, social networks, online marketplaces, other hosting service providers and providers of internet infrastructure such as IP address and domain name registries, or on their legal representatives.

          European Production Order: this will allow a judicial authority in one Member State to request electronic data that are necessary as evidence in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings (such as emails, text or messages in apps) directly from a service provider offering services in the Union and established or represented in another Member State, regardless of the location of data.

          The proposal introduces mandatory deadlines for addressees. The normal deadline is 10 days, while authorities may set a shorter deadline where justified. Moreover, in emergency cases, defined as a situation where there is an imminent threat to life or physical integrity of a person or to a critical infrastructure, the deadline is 6 hours (as compared to 120 days for the existing European Investigation Order or 10 months for a Mutual Legal Assistance procedure).

          European Production Orders to produce transactional or content data (as opposed to subscriber and access data) may only be issued for criminal offences punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence of a maximum of at least 3 years, or for specific cyber-dependent, cyber-enabled or terrorism-related crimes.

          European Preservation Order: this will allow a judicial authority in one Member State to oblige a service provider offering services in the Union and established or represented in another Member State to prevent data from being deleted and preserve specific data to enable the authority to request this information later via mutual legal assistance, a European Investigation Order or a European Production Order.

          The European Preservation Order only allows preserving data that is already stored at the time of receipt of the Order, not the access to data at a future point in time after the receipt of the Order.

          Safeguards: the proposal sets out procedural safeguards as well as rules on data protection. A judicial authority must validate Orders. Personal data covered by this proposal may only be processed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation) and Regulation (EU) 2016/680 (Data Protection Directive for Police and Criminal Justice Authorities).

          For the serving and execution of orders under this instrument, authorities should rely on the legal representative designated by the service providers. The Commission has presented a proposal to ensure that such legal representatives are effectively designated.

        committees/1/date
        2018-05-24T00:00:00
        committees/1/rapporteur
        • group
          S&D
          name
          SIPPEL Birgit
        procedure/Mandatory consultation of other institutions
        European Economic and Social Committee
        activities
        • date
          2018-04-17T00:00:00
          docs
          • url
            http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2018/0225/COM_COM(2018)0225_EN.pdf
            title
            COM(2018)0225
            type
            Legislative proposal published
            celexid
            CELEX:52018PC0225:EN
          type
          Legislative proposal published
          body
          EC
          commission
          • DG
            Commissioner
            KING Julian
        committees
        • body
          EP
          responsible
          False
          committee_full
          Internal Market and Consumer Protection
          committee
          IMCO
        • body
          EP
          responsible
          True
          committee_full
          Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
          committee
          LIBE
        links
        other
        • body
          EC
          dg
          commissioner
          KING Julian
        procedure
        reference
        2018/0108(COD)
        title
        European production and preservation orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters
        legal_basis
        • Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 082-p1
        stage_reached
        Preparatory phase in Parliament
        instrument
        Regulation
        subtype
        Legislation
        type
        COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)
        subject