Skip to content

JUD-IT Project e-Survey (Lawyers version)

e-Survey on cross border access to electronic information for the purpose of criminal investigations

The scope of the e-survey is to take stock of how electronic data is requested, accessed, and exchanged in cross-border criminal proceedings through existing EU MLAs and mutual recognition instruments, in particular the EIO. By looking at day-to-day practices, the e-Survey aims at identifying current challenges faced by private companies when receiving cross-border requests for access and exchange of electronic data. It also aims at verifying the existence of any domestic or EU initiatives aimed at ensuring mutual trust-based, fundamental rights-compliant, and efficiency-driven initiatives on access to e-data in criminal proceedings.

The replies provided to the questionnaire will be anonymised to ensure privacy. Statements from respondents might be quoted but never in a fashion that could be attributed to any specific person. Replies received though the questionnaire are for the use of the JUD-IT Project only and will not be forwarded to third parties. 
1.Please identify your organisation [mandatory field] *This information will help us ensure that you do not receive further reminders once you filled in this form
2.In which country is your organisation based?
3.What are the main actors involved in the issuing and reception of cross-border requests for electronic information in your country?
4.If you have experience with cross-border request for electronic information through a MLAT (in particular with the USand/or Japan), the EIO and/or outside MLA channels, please specify the scope of the request (e.g. communications metadata, content of communications):
5.What is the process to make such a request?
6.At what stage in the criminal proceedings the request is made?
7.What are the “top offences” for which you request electronic information?
8.What are the grounds for the request and conditions that the request must meet?
9.How long does it take on average for the data to be obtained?
10.What are the prospects of a cross-border request for electronic data made on behalf of the suspect/accused person being granted?
11.In practice, what are the main obstacles for defence practitioners seeking to obtain cross-border digital data? Where possible, please refer to practical examples.?
12.In your view, how can access to cross-border electronic data support the defence of the suspect or accused person? Where possible, please refer to practical examples.
13.What are the main challenges brought by the following instruments:
14.Have you ever challenged a cross border request for electronic data? If yes, did you challenge the request by way of an action brought in the issuing State, the executing State, or both? (mark only one)
15.What was the procedure for bringing the challenge?
16.At what stage can a challenge be brought (e.g. only before the requested data is sent to the requesting State)?
17.What are the available remedies if such a challenge is successful?
18.At what stage in the criminal proceedings are you made aware that an MLAT/EIO request has been issued?
19.In your jurisdiction, what are the possible grounds to challenge a request for cross-border access to electronic data? Please specify if there is any distinction between the grounds for challenging the issuance and the execution of such a request.
20.In your experience, what are the practical difficulties in challenging a request for cross-border digital data made by the investigating or prosecuting authorities? Where possible, please refer to practical examples.
21.What is the impact of cross-border requests on the pre-trial procedure (e.g. the length of pre-trial detention, the size of the case file, impact on legal fees and expenses)?
22.Are you aware of any best practice where the use of EIO/MLAs allowed for cross-border access to e-data in a way which met law enforcement demands while ensuring fundamental rights compliance and mutual trust?