Continued Criticism of Mobile Phone Seizure
"To put it bluntly, the question arises whether the baby is not being thrown out with the bathwater," says the Deputy European Attorney General, Andrés Ritter, to APA. He wonders whether the seizure of mobile phones does not go beyond the requirements of the Constitutional Court, on the basis of which the law is being changed.
European Public Prosecutor's Office: Retrospective Control Sufficient for Mobile Phone Seizure
Vienna. The regulation that the public prosecutor's office must rewrite data content in advance that it is looking for on the mobile phone is problematic for Ritter: "One does not have a crystal ball." At the beginning of an investigation, one cannot yet know what is on the data carrier and what social media or WhatsApp content could be found. "As a consequence, this means that decisions must be made as comprehensive as possible, otherwise new decisions are constantly needed."
For Ritter, a retrospective judicial control would have been sufficient instead of a preliminary approval by a court. Of course, the protection of personal rights must be guaranteed: "But one must also ensure efficient prosecution." Modern prosecution is unimaginable without the seizure of data carriers - but subjecting this to a comprehensive procedure only prolongs the proceedings and opens up many disputes without added value.
Mobile Phone Seizure: Right to Separation Makes Proceedings Longer and More Difficult
The European Public Prosecutor's Office is an independent body of the EU. It is responsible for the criminal investigation and prosecution of offences to the detriment of the Union's financial interests. In this context, Ritter also considers the new responsibility of the legal protection officer in the Ministry of Justice for the control of the proceedings as problematic. On the one hand, this is located in the ministry and not in the judiciary, and on the other hand, according to the latest status, it should also be responsible for applications from the European Public Prosecutor's Office. However, this would contradict EU law.
Ritter also finds it excessive that defendants in larger proceedings will in future have a right to separate "their" proceedings. Especially in the complex investigations of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, one sometimes comes up with 50 defendants - this would then mean 50 different proceedings. "The proceedings will then become longer and more difficult, and that without necessity."
(APA/Red)
This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.