EncroChat, Sky ECC and Regulation (EU) 2023/1543: towards a new standards of digital evidence (I)
Author/s: Turanjanin, Veljko,
Pages: 7-30
UDK: 004.6:343.13(4-6EU)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47152/rkkp.63.3.1
Abstract: This paper examines the transformation of digital evidence in European criminal procedure through the lens of Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 on European Production and Preservation Orders. Building on the lessons of the EncroChat and Sky ECC investigations, it analyses how the Regulation redefines the principles of mutual recognition and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, replacing traditional mutual legal assistance with a direct framework linking judicial authorities and private service providers. The study highlights how the new regime introduces harmonised safeguards—necessity, proportionality, and judicial oversight—intended to reconcile investigatory efficiency with fundamental rights protection. Special attention is devoted to questions of transparency, defence rights, and the prospective admissibility of digital evidence under the Regulation’s standards. The paper further explores the implications for EU candidate countries, particularly Serbia, emphasizing the need to align domestic procedural law with the Union’s digital-evidence framework and to prevent the misuse of the concept of “mutual trust.” It concludes that the e-evidence package marks a decisive step toward a coherent, rights-based European model of digital proof and offers a normative blueprint for countries aspiring to integrate into the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
Keywords: EncroChat, Sky ECC, Regulation (EU) 2023/1543, digital evidence
References:
Allegrezza, S. (2014) ‘Collecting criminal evidence across the European Union: The European Investigation Order between flexibility and proportionality’, in: Ruggeri, S. (ed.) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Cham: Springer, 59-82.
Apelacioni sud u Beogradu (2025) Presuda Kž1 По1 38/24, 11 July. Beograd: Posebno odeljenje za organizovani kriminal.
Armada, I. (2015) ‘The European Investigation Order and the lack of European standards for gathering evidence’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 6(1), 8-33.
Bajović, V. (2022). ‘Evidence from encrochat and sky ecc encrypted phones’, CRIMEN: časopis za krivične nauke, 13(2), 154-179.
Bajović, V. and Ćorić, V. (2025) ‘EncroChat and Sky ECC data as evidence in criminal proceedings in light of the CJEU decision’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 33, 235-262.
Belfiore, R. (2014) ‘Critical remarks on the proposal for a European Investigation Order and some considerations on the issue of mutual admissibility of evidence’, in: Ruggeri, S. (ed.) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Cham: Springer, 125-145.
Britz, M. (2004) Computer Forensics and Cyber Crime: An Introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Buono, L. (2019) ‘The Genesis of the European Union’s New Proposed Legal Instrument(s) on e-Evidence’, ERA Forum, 19(3), 307-312. doi:10.1007/s12027-018-0525-4.
Buric, Z., Engelhart, M., Novokmet, A. and Roksandic, S. (2023) ‘The admissibility of the results of mass surveillance of communication as evidence on Croatian criminal procedure: the Sky ECC case’, Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences and Practice, 30(2), 243-274.
Capus, N. and Gilbert, D. (2024) ‘Intercept evidence from foreign language communications: Reliability and minimum standards in the interests of justice’, The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 28(4), 280-297. doi:10.1177/13657127241283662.
Catanzariti, M. (2025) ‘Piercing the Veil of Ignorance of Fundamental Rights Protection: What Is Transnational in EU Judicial Cooperation?’, in: Facilitating Judicial Cooperation in the EU. Leiden: Brill, Nijhoff. doi:10.1163/9789004705791_016.
Chaikin, D. (2006) ‘Network investigations of cyber attacks: The limits of digital evidence’, Crime, Law & Social Change, 46(2), 141-158.
Davis, J., Purves, D., Gilbert, J. and Sturm, S. (2022) ‘Five ethical challenges facing data-driven policing’, AI and Ethics, 2(2), 185-193.
Dediu, D. (2018) ‘Protection of fundamental rights in the light of the Directive regarding the European Investigation Order’, Conferința Internațională de Drept, Studii Europene și Relații Internaționale, 2018, 1-10.
Farries, A. (2010) ‘The European Investigation Order: Stepping forward with care’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 1(4), 445-457.
Ferguson, A.G. (2017) The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement. New York: New York University Press.
Forlani, G. (2023) ‘The e-evidence package: The happy ending of a long negotiation saga’, eucrim – The European Criminal Law Associations’, Forum, 18(2), 174-181. doi:10.30709/eucrim-2023-013.
Galič, M., Stevens, L. and Koops, B.-J. (2023) ‘Editorial: A trialogue on regulating data-driven criminal procedure’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 14(4), 423-433. doi:10.1177/20322844231213484.
Ghosh, A. (2004) ‘Guidelines for the Management of IT Evidence’, APEC Telecommunications and Information Working Group, 29th Meeting, Hong Kong.
Hamidović, H. (2011) ‘Osnovne karakteristike digitalnih dokaza’, Kriminalističko-forenzička istraživanja, 4(1), 55-69.
Heard, C. and Mansell, D. (2011) ‘The European Investigation Order: Changing the face of evidence-gathering in EU cross-border cases’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 2(4), 351-370.
Ivanović, A. and Ivanović, A. (2015) ‘Evropski dokazni nalog i Evropski nalog za istragu u krivičnim stvarima’, Pravne teme, 3(5), 112-130.
Juszczak, A. and Sason, E. (2023) ‘The use of electronic evidence in the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: An introduction to the new EU package on e-evidence’, eucrim – The European Criminal Law Associations’, Forum, 18(2), 182-200. doi:10.30709/eucrim-2023-014.
Kiejnich-Kruk, K. (2024) ‘Quo vadis Europa—balancing between efficiency and guarantees in criminal proceedings using the example of EU production and preservation orders’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 15(2), 126-145. doi:10.1177/20322844241247482.
Kusak, M. (2019) ‘Mutual admissibility of evidence and the European investigation order: aspirations lost in reality’, ERA Forum, 19(1), 1-15.
Kusak, M. (2024) ‘EU Cross-Border Gathering and Admissibility of Electronic Content Data’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 32(2), 126-155. doi:10.1163/15718174-bja10054.
Lasagni, G. and Contissa, G. (2025) ‘Effective Rights and Remedies in the Computable Era: Facing Informative Asymmetry When AI Adds to Transnational Cooperation’, in: Facilitating Judicial Cooperation in the EU. Leiden: Brill, Nijhoff. doi:10.1163/9789004705791_003.
Lasagni, G., Caianiello, M. and Rezende, I.N. (2025) ‘Comparative Remarks on Mutual Recognition Instruments of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters’, in: Facilitating Judicial Cooperation in the EU. Leiden: Brill, Nijhoff. doi:10.1163/9789004705791_015.
Leacock, C. (2008) ‘Search and seizure of digital evidence in criminal proceedings’, Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 5, 83-92.
Lukić, T. (2012) ‘Digitalni dokazi’, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 2, 105-120.
Mirisan, L. (2018) ‘The European Investigation Order’, Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Jurisprudentia, 21, 89-103.
Moghior, C. (2025) ‘Cyber-securitization in light of the Snowden revelations: effects on institutional reform in the US and EU’, Europolity: Continuity and Change in European Governance, 19(1), 91-120.
Molder, R., Fedorova, M., Dubelaar, M. and Lestrade, S. (2023) ‘The principle of purpose limitation in data-driven policing: A guiding light or an empty shell?’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 14(4), 512-533. doi:10.1177/20322844231212749.
Monroy, M. (2022) What’s the problem with the EU regulation on the release of electronic evidence? Available at: https://digit.site36.net/2022/03/04/whats-the-problem-with-the-eu-regulation-on-the-release-of-electronic-evidence/ (Accessed: 15 August 2025).
Oerlemans, J.J. and van Toor, D.A.G. (2022) ‘Legal aspects of the EncroChat operation: A human-rights perspective’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 30, 309-328.
Sachoulidou, A. (2024) ‘Cross-border access to electronic evidence in criminal matters: The new EU legislation and the consolidation of a paradigm shift in the area of “judicial” cooperation’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 15(3), 256-274. doi:10.1177/20322844241258649.
Sagittae, G. (2023) ‘On the lawfulness of the EncroChat and Sky ECC operations’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 14(3), 273-293. doi:10.1177/20322844231159576.
Salicius, M. and Moliene, R. (2024) ‘The problem of obtaining evidence from EU countries while achieving the "crime does not pay" goal’, Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, 17(2), 207-227.
Signorato, S. (2023) ‘Cross-border gathering of e-evidence: different legal frameworks in European Union and Council of Europe’, Journal of Eastern-European Criminal Law, 2023(1), 9-18.
Turanjanin, V. (2021) ‘The principle of immediacy versus the efficiency of criminal proceedings: Do changes in the composition of the trial panel violate the right to a fair trial?’, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 39(1), 73-87. doi:10.1080/18918131.2021.1923242.
Vervaele, J. (2005) European Evidence Warrant: Transnational Judicial Inquiries in the EU. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Vogler, R. (2014) ‘The European Investigation Order: Fundamental rights at risk?’, in: Ruggeri, S. (ed.) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Cham: Springer, 147-165.
Warken, C. (2017) ‘Elektronische Beweismittel im Strafprozessrecht – eine Momentaufnahme über den deutschen Tellerrand hinaus, Teil 1. Beweissicherung im Zeitalter der digitalen Cloud’, Neue Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-, Steuer- und Unternehmensstrafrecht (NZWiSt), 2017(5), 289-295.
Zimmerman, F., Glaser, S. and Motz, A. (2011) ‘Mutual recognition and its implications for the gathering of evidence in criminal proceedings: A critical analysis of the initiative for a European Investigation Order’, European Criminal Law Review, 1(1), 55–84.