Electronic Evidence in Criminal Matters: How About E-Evidence Instruments 2.0?

Sofie Depauw

doi:10.5771/2193-5505-2018-1-62

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 1–2 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1–2
- 3–4 Editorial 1/2018 3–4
- 5–142 Articles 5–142
  - 5–38 (In)Effectiveness of Criminal Sanctions as Regards Irregular Immigrants Costanza Di Francesco Maesa Costanza Di Francesco Maesa 5–38
  - 39–61 Unity of Intent Effect on Sentencing: An EU Dimension to ne bis in idem and Proportionality? Nele Audenaert Nele Audenaert 39–61
  - 62–82 Electronic Evidence in Criminal Matters: How About E-Evidence Instruments 2.0? Sofie Depauw Sofie Depauw 62–82
  - 83–115 Towards the EU Harmonization of Access to Cross-Border E-Evidence: Challenges for Fundamental Rights & Consistency Nathalie A. Smuha Nathalie A. Smuha 83–115
  - 116–142 Anonymous Witness Evidence before the European Court of Human Rights: Is It Still Possible to Speak of “Fair Trial”? Simone Lonati Simone Lonati 116–142
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
Access

EuCLR European Criminal Law Review , page 62 - 82

Electronic Evidence in Criminal Matters: How About E-Evidence Instruments 2.0?

Autoren

Sofie Depauw

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2018-1-62
- ISSN: 2191-7442
- ISSN online: 2193-5505
Abstract

This article aims to analyse the recent developments with regard to the collection for criminal justice purposes of electronic evidence, and more precisely, content data, in Europe. Firstly, a brief historical overview of the EU’s action in the context of judicial cooperation in criminal matters (both in general and with regard to evidence) is provided. Secondly, electronic evidence itself and the legislation as it stands today will be discussed, followed by an assessment of the actions that have been taken by both the Council of Europe (CoE) and the European Union (EU) to overcome the difficulties faced by both public (law enforcement authorities) and private actors (service providers). The article evaluates the extent to which current discussions and proposals can be considered a step forward in light of the technological and judicial reality.
Share