We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 7 asks how it took more than five years for one of the most pressing legislative projects, seen as essential to enable law enforcement authorities all over the EU to effectively investigate crimes, to be resolved. The European Commission put forward the legislative package concerning e-evidence in criminal matters in 2018, but the legislative process was not concluded until June 2023. What can explain the divergences and delays that occurred, despite all parties having acknowledged the importance of the project? This chapter provides an overview of the difficulties that marked the negotiation process, as well as the solutions finally found, and serves as a very useful guide to e-evidence. It outlines the pre-history of e-evidence and the different stages of the negotiating process, before laying out the positions of the various actors on several issues that had to be negotiated. Finally, it focuses on the most contentious issue, namely the notification to be given, in some cases, by the issuing state to other states involved, permitting them to review the requests to service providers in order to ensure that human rights are protected and that no abuse occurs.
Chapter 16 comparatively examines the national legislation in EU member states in order to reveal common patterns and differences in legal rules and their practical application with respect to gathering digital evidence for the purpose of criminal investigations. The study is essentially based on the information provided in the preceding book chapters, covering seven national legal systems selected for this research: Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland and Spain. The comparative analysis investigates not only the rules on access to digital evidence but also their broader legislative context. Indeed, before analysing how data can be obtained, it is important to understand the legal terminology and categorisations used in the different legal systems, as well as the national rules on data retention in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.