Admissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights
Whether illegally obtained evidence should be deemed inadmissible is a question that many jurisdictions still struggle with. In this regard, there is no internationally accepted standard that orients national jurisdictions in detaching valid from invalid evidence. This study focuses on the two-fold...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Suor Orsola Benincasa Università Editrice
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://universitypress.unisob.na.it/ojs/index.php/ejplt/article/view/1993 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850200447345754112 |
|---|---|
| author | Oleksii Volodymyrovych Kostenko Vahid Akefi Ghaziani |
| author_facet | Oleksii Volodymyrovych Kostenko Vahid Akefi Ghaziani |
| author_sort | Oleksii Volodymyrovych Kostenko |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Whether illegally obtained evidence should be deemed inadmissible is a question that many jurisdictions still struggle with. In this regard, there is no internationally accepted standard that orients national jurisdictions in detaching valid from invalid evidence. This study focuses on the two-fold legal systems practiced within EU law and that of the European Court of Human Rights in order to identify their points of disagreement and to approximate the two systems. The outcomes suggest that the GDPR has not provided any balancing guidance for inconsistent fundamental rights; therefore, EU member states have wide discretion in prevailing one right over another. Despite this, aiming to protect EU fundamental rights, particularly the right to protection of personal data (Article 8 of the EU Charter) and the fairness procedure of a trial (Article 47 of the Charter), national courts, in the absence of domestic guidelines, are welcomed and urged to follow the ten-factor test of the judgment Beuze v. Belgium (ECHR, November 8, 2018). Finally, after examining the court's guidance, the paper at hand partially changes the test and offers a more reliable test to reconcile privacy rights with the right to a fair trial. This test could serve as a yardstick for national courts as well as upcoming ECtHR precedent.
Se le prove ottenute illegalmente debbano essere considerate inammissibili è una questione con cui molte giurisdizioni ancora lottano. Non esiste un criterio riconosciuto a livello internazionale che orienti le giurisdizioni nazionali a tal riguardo. Questo studio si concentra sui due sistemi giuridici esistenti nel diritto dell’UE e in quello della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo al fine di identificare i punti di disaccordo e di avvicinare i due sistemi. I risultati suggeriscono che il GDPR non ha fornito alcuna guida per bilanciare i diritti fondamentali incoerenti; pertanto, gli Stati membri dell’UE hanno un’ampia discrezionalità nel far prevalere un diritto rispetto a un altro. Nonostante ciò, al fine di tutelare i diritti fondamentali dell’UE, in particolare il diritto alla protezione dei dati personali (articolo 8 della Carta UE) e l’equità del processo (articolo 47 della Carta), i giudici nazionali, in assenza di orientamenti nazionali, hanno accolto favorevolmente e sono sollecitati a seguire il test dei dieci fattori della sentenza Beuze c. Belgio (CEDU, 8 novembre 2018). Infine, dopo aver esaminato le indicazioni della Corte, il documento modifica parzialmente il test e offre un test più affidabile per conciliare i diritti alla privacy con il diritto a un processo equo. Detto test potrebbe servire da metro di paragone per i tribunali nazionali e per l’imminente precedente della Corte EDU.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-031afafe8a844896bd6bbdca121b29aa |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2704-8012 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | Suor Orsola Benincasa Università Editrice |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies |
| spelling | doaj-art-031afafe8a844896bd6bbdca121b29aa2025-08-20T02:12:20ZengSuor Orsola Benincasa Università EditriceEuropean Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies2704-80122024-01-01220522010.57230/EJPLT242OVKVAGAdmissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights Oleksii Volodymyrovych Kostenko0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2131-0281Vahid Akefi Ghaziani1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4884-1197Associate Professor Faculty of Law of the National Aviation University Pre-doctoral candidate International University College of TurinWhether illegally obtained evidence should be deemed inadmissible is a question that many jurisdictions still struggle with. In this regard, there is no internationally accepted standard that orients national jurisdictions in detaching valid from invalid evidence. This study focuses on the two-fold legal systems practiced within EU law and that of the European Court of Human Rights in order to identify their points of disagreement and to approximate the two systems. The outcomes suggest that the GDPR has not provided any balancing guidance for inconsistent fundamental rights; therefore, EU member states have wide discretion in prevailing one right over another. Despite this, aiming to protect EU fundamental rights, particularly the right to protection of personal data (Article 8 of the EU Charter) and the fairness procedure of a trial (Article 47 of the Charter), national courts, in the absence of domestic guidelines, are welcomed and urged to follow the ten-factor test of the judgment Beuze v. Belgium (ECHR, November 8, 2018). Finally, after examining the court's guidance, the paper at hand partially changes the test and offers a more reliable test to reconcile privacy rights with the right to a fair trial. This test could serve as a yardstick for national courts as well as upcoming ECtHR precedent. Se le prove ottenute illegalmente debbano essere considerate inammissibili è una questione con cui molte giurisdizioni ancora lottano. Non esiste un criterio riconosciuto a livello internazionale che orienti le giurisdizioni nazionali a tal riguardo. Questo studio si concentra sui due sistemi giuridici esistenti nel diritto dell’UE e in quello della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo al fine di identificare i punti di disaccordo e di avvicinare i due sistemi. I risultati suggeriscono che il GDPR non ha fornito alcuna guida per bilanciare i diritti fondamentali incoerenti; pertanto, gli Stati membri dell’UE hanno un’ampia discrezionalità nel far prevalere un diritto rispetto a un altro. Nonostante ciò, al fine di tutelare i diritti fondamentali dell’UE, in particolare il diritto alla protezione dei dati personali (articolo 8 della Carta UE) e l’equità del processo (articolo 47 della Carta), i giudici nazionali, in assenza di orientamenti nazionali, hanno accolto favorevolmente e sono sollecitati a seguire il test dei dieci fattori della sentenza Beuze c. Belgio (CEDU, 8 novembre 2018). Infine, dopo aver esaminato le indicazioni della Corte, il documento modifica parzialmente il test e offre un test più affidabile per conciliare i diritti alla privacy con il diritto a un processo equo. Detto test potrebbe servire da metro di paragone per i tribunali nazionali e per l’imminente precedente della Corte EDU. https://universitypress.unisob.na.it/ojs/index.php/ejplt/article/view/1993admissibility of electronic evidenceeuropean court of human rightseu lawfair trialfundamental rightsright to privacy |
| spellingShingle | Oleksii Volodymyrovych Kostenko Vahid Akefi Ghaziani Admissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies admissibility of electronic evidence european court of human rights eu law fair trial fundamental rights right to privacy |
| title | Admissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights |
| title_full | Admissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights |
| title_fullStr | Admissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights |
| title_full_unstemmed | Admissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights |
| title_short | Admissibility of illegally obtained e-evidence: A critical study of EU law and the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights |
| title_sort | admissibility of illegally obtained e evidence a critical study of eu law and the precedents of the european court of human rights |
| topic | admissibility of electronic evidence european court of human rights eu law fair trial fundamental rights right to privacy |
| url | https://universitypress.unisob.na.it/ojs/index.php/ejplt/article/view/1993 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT oleksiivolodymyrovychkostenko admissibilityofillegallyobtainedeevidenceacriticalstudyofeulawandtheprecedentsoftheeuropeancourtofhumanrights AT vahidakefighaziani admissibilityofillegallyobtainedeevidenceacriticalstudyofeulawandtheprecedentsoftheeuropeancourtofhumanrights |