Normalising the use of electronic evidence
Bringing technology use into a familiar normative path in civil procedure
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1304Mots-clés :
cross-border litigation, electronic evidence, electronic taking of evidence, Regulation (EU) 2020/1983, eIDAS, GDPR, e-CODEX, CanguilhemRésumé
Society is increasingly relying on technology for daily business and activities. This is linked to a rapid update in technology use and digitalisation with courts being called to consider new forms of evidence in an electronic environment and/or rely on technology for the taking of evidence. The normative framework concerning electronic evidence remains fragmented while various legislative projects are ongoing. In this process the global pandemic accelerated attention for technology solutions and their integration in the handling of court claims. In the EU, the reviewed Taking of Evidence Regulation (Regulation 2020/1783) addresses some of the necessary aspects related to electronic evidence and cooperation between authorities. Other elements are covered by cross-sectorial EU legislation such as regulations concerning data protection or electronic identification and trust services. New regulation proposals concerning the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and communication in cross-border procedures are set to address some of the legislative gaps in the near future as well as support the developments of necessary technology. However, the overall existing legislation is only partly sufficient for providing a comprehensive framework and does not provide much guidance in the process of considering metadata or assessing electronic evidence.
Téléchargements
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF_12_3_Onţanu_OSLS (English) 679
XML_12_3_Onţanu_OSLS (English) 455
Références
Bayard, F., 2020. Aanbevelingen ingevolge corona (College van hoven en rechtbanken). Legal News [online], 13 March. Available from: https://legalnews.be/geschillen-procedure/aanbevelingen-ingevolge-corona-college-van-hoven-en-rechtbanken/ [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Biasiotti, M.A., 2018. Present and Future of the Exchange of Electronic Evidence in Europe. In: M.A. Biasiotti et al., eds., Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe. Cham: Springer, 13–32.
Biasiotti, M.A., et al., 2018. Introduction: Opportunities and Challenges for Electronic Evidence. In: M.A. Biasiotti et al., eds., Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe. Cham: Springer, 3–12.
Borsari, G., and Velicogna, M., 2011. Executive summary. In: G. Borsari et al., eds., e-CODEX deliverable 7.1 governance and guidelines definition (v. 1), 10–12.
Canguilhem, G., 1991. The Normal and the Pathological. New York: Zone Books.
CEPEJ-CoE 2020. European judicial systems – CEPEJ Evaluation Report – Evaluation cycle 2020. Part 1: Tables, graphs and analysis. Council of Europe.
Contini, F., 2020. Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Humans, Law and Technology Interactions in Judicial Proceedings. Law, Technology and Humans [online], 2(1), 4–18. Available from: https://lthj.qut.edu.au/article/view/1478 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Docrat, Z., and Kaschula, R.H., 2020. Forensic linguists explore how emojis can be used as evidence in court. The Conversation [online], 22 March. Available from: https://theconversation.com/forensic-linguists-explore-how-emojis-can-be-used-as-evidence-in-court-133462 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Fabri, M., 2009. The Italian Style of e-Justice in a Comparative Perspective. In: A. Cerrillo i Martínez and P. Fabra i Abat, eds., Information and Communication Technologies in the Court System. Hershey: IGI Global, 1–19.
Garapon, A., and Lassègue, J., 2018. Justice digitale : Révolution graphique et rupture anthropologique. Paris : PUF.
Gascón Inchausti, F., and Requejo Isidro, M., 2019. Classic Cross-border Case: The Usual Situation in the First Instance. In: B. Hess and P. Ortolani, eds., Impediments of National Procedural Law to the Free Movement of Judgments, Luxembourg Report on European Procedural Law (Volume I). Oxford/Baden-Baden: Beck/Hart/Nomos, 5–85.
Govender, S., 2017. Those smiley face or thumbs up emojis could land you in legal hot water. Times Live [online], 1 October. Available from: https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-10-01-those-smiley-face-or-thumbs-up-emojis-could-land-you-in-legal-hot-water/# [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Jacquemin, H., and Gillard, N., 2018. Regulation 910/2014/EU – eIDAS Regulation. In: S. Gijrath et al., eds., Concise European Data Protection, E-Commerce and IT Law 3rd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 503–590.
Jansen, R., 2019. Explaining the methods for taking evidence abroad within the EU and some first observations on the proposal for the Evidence Regulation (recast). Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 4, 753–770.
Janssen, E. 2018. Hearsay in the Smiley Face: Analyzing the Use of Emojis as Evidence. St. Mary's Law Journal [online], 3, 699–725. Available from: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=thestmaryslawjournal [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Krans, B., and Nylund, A., eds., 2020. Civil Justice and Covid-19. Septentrio reports [online], 5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7557/sr.2020.5 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Krans, B., and Nylund, A., eds., 2021. Civil Courts Coping with COVID-19 [online]. The Hague: Eleven International. Available from: https://boeken.rechtsgebieden.boomportaal.nl/publicaties/9789462362048#5 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Lanzara, G.F., 2009. Building Digital Institutions: ICT and the Rise of Assemblages in Government. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e-government. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 9–48.
Lanzara, G.F., 2014. The Circulation of Agency in Judicial Proceedings: Designing for Interoperability and Complexity. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 3–32.
Lanzara, G.F., 2016. Shifting Practices: Reflection on Technology, Practice, and Innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 145–194.
Mason, S., ed., 2008. International Electronic Evidence. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
Mohr, R., 2005. Enduring Signs and Obscure Meanings: Contested Coats of Arms in Australian Jurisdictions. In: A. Wagner, T. Summerfield and F. Benavides, eds., Contemporary Issues of the Semiotics of Law. Oxford: Hart, 180–195.
Onţanu, E.A., 2017, Cross-Border Debt Recovery in the EU: A Comparative and Empirical Study on the Use of the European Uniform Procedures. Cambridge/Brussels: Intersentia.
Onţanu, E.A., 2019. Adapting Justice to Technology and Technology to Justice. A Coevolution Process to e-Justice in Cross-Border Litigation. European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities [online], 8(2), 1–18. Available from: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-62449-5 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Polański, P.P., 2015. Towards the single digital market for e-identification and trust services. Computer Law and Security Review, 31(6), 773–781.
Sorabji, J., 2021. Developing the New Normal for English Civil Procedure Post Covid-19. In: B. Krans and A. Nylund, eds., Civil Courts Coping with COVID-19 [online]. The Hague: Eleven International, 63–72. Available from: https://boeken.rechtsgebieden.boomportaal.nl/publicaties/9789462362048#5 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Stuerner, R., 2018. Current Developments of the Law of Evidence from a Comparative Point of View. General Report. In: Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Procesal, ed., La prueba en el proceso (Evidence in the Process), II Conferencia International & XXVI Jornadas Iberoamericanas de Derecho Procesal, IIDP-IAPL. Barcelona: Atelier Libros Jurídicos.
Tulibacka, M., 2009. Europeanization of Civil Procedure: In Search of a Coherent Approach. Common Market Law Review, 46(5), 1527–1565.
Vazquez Maymir, S., 2019. Anchoring the Need to Revise Cross-Border Access to e-Evidence. Internet Policy Review [online], 9(3), 1–243. Available from: https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.3.1495 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Velicogna, M., 2007. Justice systems and ICT-What can be learned from Europe. Utrecht Law Review [online], 3(1), 129–147. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.41 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Velicogna, M., 2014. Coming to Terms with Complexity Overload in Transborder e-Justice: The e-CODEX Platform. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 309–330.
Velicogna, M., 2020. Cross-Border Civil Litigation in the EU: What Can We Learn from COVID-19 Emergency National e-Justice Experiences? [online]. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737648 [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Velicogna, M., and Contini, F., 2009. Assemblage-in-the-making: Developing the e-services for the Justice of the Peace Office in Italy. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e-government. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 211–243.
Velicogna, M., and Lupo, G., 2017. From Drafting Common Rules to Implementing Electronic European Civil Procedures: The Rise of e-CODEX. In: B. Hess and X.E. Kramer, eds., From Common Rules to Best Practices in European Civil Procedure. Oxford/Baden-Baden: Hart/Nomos, 197–204.
Velicogna, M., and Ng, G.Y., 2006. Legitimacy and Internet in the Judiciary: A lesson from the Italian Courts’ websites experience. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 14(3), 370–389.
Velicogna, M., and Steigenga, E., 2016. Can Complexity Theory Help Understanding Tomorrow E-Justice? Conference on Complex Systems, Law and Complexity session, Amsterdam [online], 20–23. Available from: https://www.e-codex.eu/sites/default/files/2019-08/Velicogna_Steigenga_2016_-_Can_complexity_theory_help_understanding_tomo_0.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Velicogna, M., et al., 2017. D1.1 The existing context: Assessment report on the current situation to connect legal practitioners to e-CODEX in Pro-CODEX participating countries, Pro-CODEX project deliverable v.1.0. Bologna: IRSIG.
Wharton, J., 2019, Judges need to know what the aubergine emoji really means. Metro [online], 22 February. Available from : https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/22/judges-need-know-aubergine-emoji-really-means-8708867/ [Accessed 8 April 2022].
Wilson, S., 2015, Developing a Metadata Repository for Distributed File Annotation and Sharing, Open Access Theses. p. 1.
Zwenne, G.J., et al., 2018. Regulation 2016/679/EU – General Data Protection Regulation. In: S. Gijrath et al., eds., Concise European Data Protection, E-Commerce and IT Law 3rd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 19–252.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Elena Alina Ontanu 2022
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
