BETA


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

Progress: Awaiting committee decision

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead LIBE SIPPEL Birgit (icon: S&D S&D) MELO Nuno (icon: EPP EPP), KÖRNER Moritz (icon: Renew Renew), LAGODINSKY Sergey (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), TARDINO Annalisa (icon: ID ID), ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ Lucia (icon: ECR ECR), ERNST Cornelia (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
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

2019/10/24
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2019/09/04
   EP - SIPPEL Birgit (S&D) 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 (S&D) 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

History

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

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