You will be redirected to the website of our parent company, Schönherr Rechtsanwälte GmbH: www.schoenherr.eu
Few topics have sparked as much controversy in 2024 as the seizure and examination of mobile data carriers and the data found therein. Despite an urgent need to have the legal framework amended by the end of 2024, a new draft bill was published only on 20 November 2024. We take a look.
If the Public Prosecutor's Office (PPO) wants to seize objects (for evidentiary purposes, to secure civil-law claims or to secure the enforcement of property rights), the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (ACCP) requires that the PPO establishes the status of the suspicion on which the investigative measure is based, the objects to be seized and their relevance, and why the seizure is proportionate and necessary; in other words, why the evidentiary purpose of the measure would be jeopardised if more lenient actions would be taken. Importantly, a court order is not necessary, as opposed to house searches or surveillance measures.
For a long time, the seizure and subsequent analysis of mobile data and data carriers was not treated any differently. Mobile data carriers were treated like "ordinary" objects, regardless of the external and internal data found when analysing them.
However, this changed due to two decisions in particular:
On 14 December 2024 (G 352/2021), the Constitutional Court of Austria rendered a landmark verdict on whether the provisions applicable to the seizure of "ordinary" objects also apply to the seizure of mobile data and data carriers. The Court concurred with numerous experts and rejected this notion. In essence, it stated that the invasion of data protection and privacy was particularly intense, as access to a data carrier not only provided a snapshot of the person's behaviour, but comprehensive insight into significant parts of their past and present life.
The Court further provided a guideline on which aspects would need to be considered when amending the legal framework. Most prominently, the PPO would need to obtain an order by the respective court of first instance. Furthermore, the lawmaker would have to ensure that the analysis is comprehensible and verifiable, and the data carriers would only be evaluated to the extent necessary. It would also have to be ensured that the persons concerned received the information necessary to safeguard their rights in the proceedings. The Court also suggested implementing independent supervision, which reviewed whether the PPO or the police remained within the scope of the court order.
The Court granted the lawmaker time until 31 December 2024 to amend the current provisions. From 1 January 2025, the current provisions on seizures of all kinds will cease to be in force.
The uncertainty regarding the seizure of mobile data and data carriers was further aggravated by a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dated 4 October 2024 (C-548/21). This decision was based on Directive (EU) 2016/680, read in light of certain provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In the decision, the ECJ stated that mobile data and data carriers could be seized and analysed regardless of the seriousness of the offence. Therefore, such measures are not restricted only to grave offences.
However, the ECJ then essentially took a stance previously also taken by the Constitutional Court in its earlier (and completely separate) decision, highlighting the requirement of a court order, clear and precise rules defining the type or categories of the offences concerned to ensure proportionality, and the rights of the persons concerned to be informed about the purpose of the data processing and the remedies available to them.
Contrary to the decision by the Constitutional Court, the ECJ's decision binds all Member States with immediate effect regarding the interpretation of the relevant EU law provisions. A national court that disregards a decision of the ECJ risks violating EU law.
Additionally, in a recent (unpublished and pending) decision by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (332 HR 369/23 m), the Court stated that the processing of data not relevant as evidence, or of personal data not necessary for the purposes of the investigation, constitutes a violation of the law. Data resulting from such unlawful conduct must immediately be erased from the copies of data or mirror images.
In June 2024, the Government presented a draft bill to amend the provisions on the seizure and analysis of mobile data and data carriers, which also included other amendments to the ACCP. However, due to heavy criticism, the draft bill was pulled.
A new draft bill was published only on 20 November 2024, just in time to enable its entry into force in 2024 (subject to the passing of a resolution to that effect).
The key points of the draft bill are:
As previously, in addition to the amendment of the regime to seize and analyse mobile data and data carriers, the draft bill contains many other amendments to the ACCP, such as implementing measures to expedite pre-trial proceedings.
In light of the recent elections in Austria, which have left the previous government that drafted the bill without a majority, it remains to be seen whether this draft bill will come into force and, if so, whether it will undergo any changes.
For the time being, legal practitioners remain in limbo about the circumstances under which the seizure and analysis of mobile data and data carriers are lawful. Addressing this legal uncertainty and attempting to offer at least a temporary solution, particularly due to the decision of the ECJ, the Ministry of Justice recently published a Decree on how the PPO are to proceed. Accordingly,
The subordinate authorities (in particular the PPO) are bound by the provisions of the Decree, provided these do not contradict the laws.
Seizures and analysis of mobile data and data carriers are a fundamental part of criminal investigations and beyond. Therefore, it is to be hoped that the lawmaker will soon amend the current legal framework by addressing the courts' concerns.
Whatever the outcome, it is to be expected that any legal framework that comes into force will be thoroughly challenged by those individuals and legal entities affected by such measures.
author: Oliver Michael Loksa
Oliver Michael
Loksa
Counsel
austria vienna