The JUSTIF Committee of the EU Parliament has on Monday its position on the draft regulation of the Commission for the bustling access to electronic evidence ("E-Evidence") staked. In principle, he carries out the design, but demands corrections.
The core of the design is one "European template arrangement". Justice keports from a Member State are intended to request inventory data as well as connection and location information including IP addresses as well as content data, for example, e-mails or chats, which are independent of their location directly from service providers, which are in the EU tatig or established.
Arrangements for the information of subscriber data and IP addresses could be ied according to the bill for the identification of the person at each offense. These should be directed directly to the service provider and at the same time to the enforcement documents and can be carried out within ten days – or in an emergency fall within 16 hours -. Previous legal assistance searches in third countries often need months to years.
The arrangements for access to transport and content data should be subject to stricter requirements according to the decision of the deputies stricter requirements and only to be ied for offenses, for this there is at least three years imprisonment. However, there is also an exception for offenses that are committed online, ie about cybercriminalitat, terrorism-related offenses such as propaganda on the Internet as well as the dissemination of representations of sexual child abuse.
According to the line of Parliament, the enforcement keeps will have ten days to decide whether they collect the arrival of the orders received. If no contradiction is made within the deadline, the arrangement can be carried out.
The executing state is to reject on the basis of a catalog of reasons for reasons. The Committee is charged here about special rules about the criminal responsibility of journalists and freedom of Meinungsauberung in other media by the law of the State, which could be taken into account. Inquiries also had to be compatible with fundamental rights.
The deputies also demand that the service provider is intended to provide the requested data only after written permission by the enforcement documents if the state iing an array of transport and content data is subject to a procedure under Article 7 of the EU Treaty. The Council of Ministers may conclude on its basis with the majority of four fundings of its members as well as with Parliament’s placement that the clear danger of a serious violation of European values, such as the rule of law, consists of a Member State. Currently there are complaints about Poland and Hungary.
The parliamentary rapporteur Birgit Sippel threw the Commission after the vote complete ignorance against the fact, "that there are still material differences in criminal law between Member States". Thus, about vigorously, what determining techniques used and which sanctions were to be detected. "This approach has been relocated to fundamental rights and government privileges and responsibilities on private institutions", Stressed the SPD politician who had to make a compromise about 500 amendments.
The Committee adopted the point of view with 35 JA and 22 NO votes at 7 abstentions. With a broad majority, the deputies support the resolution on the inclusion of spoken to the current negotiations with the Council and the Commission. The plenary of Parliament must still confirm the position, which is considered a formality. A study carried out by Europol showed yesst that large US service providers’ application of EU law enforcement to the publication of existing and traffic data in 66 percent of the trap already voluntarily fulfilled.