BETA


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

Progress: Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st reading

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead LIBE SIPPEL Birgit (icon: Unknown Group Unknown Group) MELO Nuno (icon: Unknown Group Unknown Group), KÖRNER Moritz (icon: Renew Renew), TARDINO Annalisa (icon: Unknown Group Unknown Group), LAGODINSKY Sergey (icon: Unknown Group Unknown Group), ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ Lucia (icon: Unknown Group Unknown Group)
Former Responsible Committee LIBE SIPPEL Birgit (icon: Unknown Group Unknown Group)
Committee Opinion IMCO
Former Committee Opinion IMCO
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 082-p1

Events

2020/12/16
   EP - Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71)
2020/12/14
   EP - Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71)
2020/12/11
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Birgit SIPPEL (S&D, DE) 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.

As a reminder, the Commission proposed two instruments, this proposal for a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters and a proposal for a Directive laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings.

The committee recommended that the European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the Commission proposal.

Subject matter

The proposed Regulation aims to lay down the rules under which an authority of a Member State, in a criminal proceeding, may order a service provider offering services in the Union and established or, if not established, legally represented in another Member State to produce or preserve electronic information that may serve as evidence, regardless of the location of data.

Authorities of the Member States should not issue domestic orders with extraterritorial effects for the production or preservation of electronic information that could be requested on the basis of this Regulation. The issuing of a European Production or Preservation Order could also be requested on behalf of a suspected or accused person, within the framework of applicable defence rights in accordance with national criminal procedures.

Scope

Members stipulated that this Regulation should apply to Member States and service providers, offering services in one or more Member States bound by this Regulation and established or legally represented in one of these Member States.

This Regulation should not apply to proceedings initiated by the issuing authority for the purpose of providing mutual legal assistance to another Member State or a third country.

Conditions for issuing European Preservation and Production Orders

The European Preservation and Production Orders may be issued if they are necessary and proportionate. They should only be issued if they could have been ordered under the same conditions in a similar domestic case in the issuing State, where there are sufficient reasons to believe that a crime has been committed, where it is grave enough to justify the cross-border preservation of the data and where the requested information is relevant for that investigation.

If the issuing authority has reasons to believe that data requested is protected by immunities and privileges granted under the law of the Member State where the service provider is addressed, or its preservation may impact fundamental interests of that Member State such as national security and defence, the issuing authority should seek clarification before issuing the European Preservation Order, including by consulting the competent authorities of the Member State concerned, either directly or via Eurojust or the European Judicial Network in criminal matters.

Where the issuing authority finds that the requested data is protected by such immunities and privileges or its preservation would impact fundamental interests of the other Member State, the issuing authority should not issue the European Preservation Order.

Common European exchange system

The Commission should establish a common European exchange system with secure channels for the handling of authorised cross-border communication, authentication and transmission of the Orders and of the requested data between the competent authorities and service providers.

Execution of an EPOC for subscriber data and IP addresses for the sole purpose of identifying a person

An EPOC for subscriber data and IP addresses, for the sole purpose of identifying a person, should be addressed directly and simultaneously: (i) to the main establishment of the service provider or, where applicable, where its legal representative is established; and (ii) to the executing authority.

Upon receipt of an EPOC for subscriber data or IP addresses for the sole purpose of identifying a person, the service provider should ensure that the requested data is transmitted to the issuing authority at the latest within 10 days upon receipt of the EPOC and within 16 hours in emergency cases.

Documents
2020/12/07
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2020/12/07
   EP - Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee
2019/12/09
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2019/12/09
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2019/11/06
   EDPS - Document attached to the procedure
2019/10/24
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2019/10/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2019/09/04
   EP - SIPPEL Birgit (Unknown Group) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
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 - SIPPEL Birgit (Unknown Group) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
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

AmendmentsDossier
574 2018/0108(COD)
2019/12/11 LIBE 574 amendments...
source: 644.870

History

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

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: S&D - Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: S&D - Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2018-05-24T00:00:00 group: ??? abbr: Unknown Group
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2018-05-24T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
events/6
date
2020-12-11T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2020-0256_EN.html title: A9-0256/2020
summary
events/7
date
2020-12-14T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71)
body
EP
events/8
date
2020-12-16T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71)
body
EP
procedure/Legislative priorities
  • title: Joint Declaration 2021 url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2066000&l=en
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament's position in 1st reading
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
96932
events/4
date
2020-12-07T00:00:00
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
events/5
date
2020-12-07T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee
body
EP
docs/3
date
2019-11-06T00:00:00
docs
type
Document attached to the procedure
body
EDPS
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE642.987
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE642.987
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.802
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.802
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.870
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.870
docs/2/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE642.987
docs/3
date
2019-12-09T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.802 title: PE644.802
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/4
date
2019-12-09T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE644.870 title: PE644.870
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
events/3
date
2019-10-21T00:00:00
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/2/date
Old
2019-10-29T00:00:00
New
2019-10-24T00:00:00
docs/2
date
2019-10-29T00:00:00
docs
title: PE642.987
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
committees/0/shadows
  • name: MELO Nuno group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
  • name: KÖRNER Moritz group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew
  • name: LAGODINSKY Sergey group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE
  • name: TARDINO Annalisa group: Identity and Democracy abbr: ID
  • name: ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ Lucia group: European Conservatives and Reformists Group abbr: ECR
  • name: ERNST Cornelia group: Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left abbr: GUE/NGL
committees/2/opinion
False
committees/0/rapporteur
  • name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2019-09-04T00:00:00 group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/0/date
    committees/1
    type
    Former Responsible Committee
    body
    EP
    associated
    False
    committee_full
    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
    committee
    LIBE
    rapporteur
    name: SIPPEL Birgit date: 2018-05-24T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
    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/2/date
      committees/3/date
        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 body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en title: Justice and Consumers 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: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee: IMCO body: EP 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 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
        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: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2018:0118:FIN:EN:PDF title: EUR-Lex title: SWD(2018)0118 type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
        • date: 2018-04-18T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2018:0119:FIN:EN:PDF title: EUR-Lex title: SWD(2018)0119 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: 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 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2018&nu_doc=0225 title: EUR-Lex summary: 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.
        • 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: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en title: Justice and Consumers 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: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en title: Justice and Consumers 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: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en title: Justice and Consumers 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