1. Courts are being increasingly called upon to deal with electronic evidence or to authorize the production of electronic data by parties and other persons involved in civil or administrative proceedings.

2. To date, there are few standards applicable to electronic evidence at international, European or national level. Significant deficiencies remain in the law and practice applicable to electronic evidence.

3. The purpose of these guidelines on electronic evidence is not to establish binding legal standards but rather to serve as a practical tool for the Council of Europe member States in adapting the operation of their judicial and other dispute resolutions mechanisms to address issues arising in relation to electronic evidence. In this respect, the guidelines are intended to strengthen the efficiency and quality of justice.

4. Electronic evidence differs in many respects from other types of evidence and specific challenges arise when dealing with electronic evidence in the courts and other competent authorities with adjudicative functions. These challenges point towards the need to enhance knowledge about electronic evidence and improve the handling of electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings.

Working method and the drafting process

5. The issue of electronic evidence falls within the competence of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) which is the Council of Europe intergovernmental body responsible for the standard-setting activities of the Council of Europe in the field of civil and administrative law.

6. The guidelines were drawn up by a drafting group and are based on the proposals made by CDCJ members and designated experts and were prepared at meetings held in 2018. The said meetings also involved the relevant Council of Europe bodies with expertise and responsibilities in this field.

7. The drafting group took into consideration experience arising from the operation of electronic justice mechanisms existing in member States.

Member States examples

· The electronic justice system (“Lietuvos teismų informacinė sistema (“LITEKO”)) was set up in Lithuania in 2004. LITEKO reduces paper cases, and allows the participants of the case to submit all procedural documents on the Internet web page and monitor the progress of the case.

· Croatia is developing an e-Commercial Register, an e-Land Register and an integrated case-tracking system (“eSpis”). The latter will allow to electronic communication between parties to court proceedings and a court.

Structure and content

8. The guidelines are not only a declaration of principles but aspire to giving practical advice.

Preamble

9. The preamble explains that the guidelines are to be applied only in so far as they do not contradict national legislation. The guidelines are a non-binding instrument. They are not aimed at harmonisation of the national legislation of the member States. The guidelines are not to be interpreted as prescribing a specific legal value for certain electronic evidence. They are intended to be general enough to accommodate all the different legal systems. The diversity in the legal systems of the member States is fully acknowledged.

Purpose and scope

10. The guidelines aim to ensure that specific challenges related to electronic evidence are addressed, such as the potential probative value of metadata, the ease of manipulation, the distortion and erasure of electronic evidence, and the involvement of a third party (including trust services providers in the collection and seizure of electronic evidence). The guidelines apply to the resolution of disputes in both civil and administrative proceedings.

Member States example

In Slovakia, the administrative bodies are open to receiving electronic evidence, based on the general rule that anything that has evidentiary value for the purpose of determining the actual state of affairs may be submitted as evidence, as long as such evidence is not obtained in violation of the law.

Definitions

Electronic evidence

11. A broad definition of “electronic evidence” (also referred to as “digital evidence”) is adopted. It may take the form of text, video, photographs or sounds. Data may originate from different carriers or access methods, such as mobile phones, webpages, on-board computers or GPS recorders, including data stored in a storage space outside the party’s own control. Electronic messages (e-mail) are a typical example of electronic evidence, as it is evidence originating from an electronic device (computer or computer like-device) and which includes the relevant metadata (see the definition of “metadata” below).

Metadata

12. “Metadata” means data about other data. It is sometimes referred to as the “digital fingerprint” of electronic evidence. It may include important evidentiary data, such as the date and time of creation or modification of a file or document, or the author and the date and time of sending the data. Metadata is usually not directly accessible.

Trust service

13. Trust services play a critical role in the identification, authentication and security of online transactions. The definition of “trust service” is formulated in accordance with Article 3 (16) of the Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and Council of 23 July 2014 (the eIDAS Regulation). In these guidelines, reference is also made to specific trust services related to “simple”, “advanced” or “qualified” electronic signatures and certificates, which implies possible application of other definitions adopted in the eIDAS Regulation.

Court

14. A broad definition of “court” is included in order to cover all authorities with competences to adjudicate legal disputes between parties to civil and administrative proceedings. They include courts, tribunals and administrative bodies.

Fundamental principles

15. The first principle explains that although the role of the experts in the evaluation of electronic evidence is important, it is ultimately for the courts to decide on the potential probative value of electronic evidence. In doing so, courts may be bound by applicable law presumptions (e.g. providing specific probative value for certain type of electronic evidence).

16. The second principle requires that electronic evidence should be neither discriminated against nor privileged over other types of evidence. In this respect courts should also adopt a technologically neutral approach. This means that any technology that enables authenticity, accuracy and integrity of data to be established should be accepted.

European Court of Human Rights’ case-law

“While Article 6 of the Convention of Human Rights guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts” (see García Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, paragraph 28).

17. The third principle refers to the equality of arms and equal treatment of the parties to proceedings with regard to electronic evidence. Treatment of electronic evidence should not be disadvantageous to parties to civil or administrative proceedings. For example, a party should not be deprived of the possibility to challenge the authenticity of evidence. If a court requests a party to submit printouts of electronic evidence, such party should not be deprived of the opportunity to submit relevant metadata.

European Court of Human Rights’ case-law

“The principle of the equality of arms implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case – including his evidence – under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent” (see Letinčić v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, paragraph 48).

Guidelines

Oral evidencetaken by remote link

18. Oral evidence taken by remote link is considered as electronic evidence for the purpose of these guidelines (see the definition of “electronic evidence” above). This section of the guidelines does not, however, cover pre-recorded oral evidence. It relates to oral evidence in the form of videoconferencing (transmission of synchronized image and sound in real time). Not all oral evidence can be taken by remote link. Attention must be given to the technical devices. It may be carried out remotely using analogue or digital technical devices enabling telecommunication transmission, in particular real-time two-way communication allowing for the transmission of image and sound. If the testimony requires confidentiality, it may be necessary to apply measures or technical solutions which can limit access to the intelligible form of secure communication only to authorized persons. Devices which can ensure the integrity of telecommunications will allow the court and the parties an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the “remote” witness.

Examples of EU and national regulations

· Article 10(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters provides that the requesting court may ask the requested court to use communication technology, in particular videoconferencing.

· Art. 803(3) of the Lithuanian Code of Civil Procedure establishes that “the courts of the Republic of Lithuania can ask a foreign court to use communication technology (such as videoconferencing) for taking evidence”.

19. The decisive factors for whether oral evidence is taken by remote link are economic considerations (e.g. reduction of the costs involved), practical difficulties (e.g. illness, disability of a witness) and procedural efficiency efforts to avoid excessive length of proceedings. If a person is resident in a different country, it may be more appropriate to question him/her remotely. The same principle relates to a group of persons that has a distant place of residence from the judicial district of the court hearing the case. If a person is a key witness it may be more appropriate to question him/her at court. Other factors to be considered by the courts include participation and costs of translators for the hearing. It is important that judges, professionals, including legal practitioners, and court staff are aware of possible differences between in-person testimony and remote testimony. For example, it is less easy to observe and interpret the demeanor of the witnesses.

20. This guideline requires attention to the process whereby the remote testimony is carried on. Particularly in case of evidence of fundamental importance for the resolution of a case, it is important to ensure that technology used makes it possible to ask questions in the course of giving testimony (if the rules of procedure so provide). This requirement is hardly met, when, transmission is distorted due to weak connectivity or if access to the technical means is limited for the parties. This may give unfair advantage to one of the parties. As far as it is technically possible, the remote evidence should be taken in a same way as it is taken inside the court.

21. The methods used should properly secure image or sound transmission against loss, distortion or unauthorized disclosure. The court may verify the identity of any person giving testimony by requiring him/her to present an appropriate document, such as a valid identity card, passport or driving license.

22. All available systems of communication, both public and private, should ensure at minimum the quality of the videoconference and encryption of the video signal in order to protect against interception. It is possible to receive evidence via a private connection, if the national law permits, provided the solutions used offer enough technical security and respect procedural safeguards. Private connection in this context means communication system that is not an official, governmental system specifically created for taking the evidence in court.

Use of electronic evidence

23. Courts should be aware of importance of electronic data submitted by the parties as evidence in its original format. If a printout of electronic evidence is filed, the court may order, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, provision of the original of the electronic evidence by the relevant person. An example of evidence that may have significant importance for resolving the point in issue, provided it is presented in original format, is geo location data. Most jurisdictions around the world have already expressly provided in their law for such use of electronic evidence in legal proceedings. Example of such provisions can be found in the eIDAS Regulation.

Member States example

The Supreme Court of Croatia (case no. I Kž 696/04-7) confirmed that SMS messages may be used as evidence in the proceedings as they are equal source of information as any other written content stored on other medium.

Example of technology to be specifically used for securing the evidence (Blockchain)

Blockchain is an emerging technology which has potential to provide increased trust and security in electronic evidence. It can be defined as a distributed ledger that refers to the list of records (blocks), which are linked and secured using cryptography and are recorded in a decentralized peer-to-peer network. By design, a blockchain is inherently resistant to modification of the data. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires collusion of the network majority. This makes blockchain suitable for the evidencing purposes.

In USA, § 1913 of the Vermont Rules of Evidence reads: (1) A digital record electronically registered in a blockchain shall be self-authenticating pursuant to Vermont Rule of Evidence 902, if it is accompanied by a written declaration of a qualified person, made under oath, stating the qualification of the person to make the certification and: (a) the date and time the record entered the blockchain; (b) the date and time the record was received from the blockchain; (c) that the record was maintained in the blockchain as a regular conducted activity; and (d) that the record was made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.

In China, the Hangzhou Internet Court confirmed on June 28, 2018 that the blockchain-based electronic data can be used as evidence in legal disputes. The usage of a third-party blockchain platform that is reliable without conflict of interests provided the legal ground for proving the intellectual infringement.

(http://www.xinhuanet.com/2018-06/28/c_1123051280.htm).

24. For the purposes of guideline 7, “advanced electronic signature” means an electronic signature which meets the requirements set out in Article 36 of the eIDAS regulation and “qualified electronic signature” means an advanced electronic signature that is created by a qualified electronic signature creation device, and which is based on a qualified certificate for electronic signatures.

25. In current practice most of the electronic data lack any advanced or qualified electronic signatures and are not secured in any other way. They should nevertheless still be considered by the courts as electronic evidence (while the probative value of the evidence may vary depending on the individual case) considering, for example, a variety of trust services related to electronic management of documents and identification of signatories that are available around the world. An example is biometric signature, a method of obtaining an electronic version of a handwritten signature where a person writes his or her handwritten signature on an electronic device by using a special pen and pad. Depending on the applicable law, the court may recognize such a biometric signature as equivalent to a handwritten signature on paper.

26. Metadata provides the necessary context to evaluate the evidence (data) in the same way as a postage stamp provides context to evaluation of the ordinary (paper) letter and its content. Electronic evidence includes metadata as a matter of course and courts should be aware of its potential probative value. It can be used to trace and identify the source and destination of a communication, data on the device that generated electronic evidence, the date, time, duration and the type of evidence. The metadata may be relevant, either as indirect evidence (e.g. indicating the most relevant version of the document) or it may itself be relevant as direct evidence (e.g. in case the file data is manipulated). This guideline is also relevant in the case of lost metadata.

Examples of case-law on metadata in Ireland

Metadata was considered important for authenticating the provenance of electronically created documents / materials (Koger Inc. & Koger (Dublin) Ltd v O'Donnell & Others [2010] IEHC 350).

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/1F8979ED6FCCF69C802577CB003B6360

The Irish courts have ruled that an obligation to discover electronically stored evidence includes discovery of the metadata of the native documents, where this would be relevant (Sretaw v. Craven House Capital PLC [2017] IEHC 580; Gallagher v RTE [2017] IEHC 237).

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/D5847A097092C099802581C40045290E

27. Printouts of electronic evidence can be easily manipulated as they exclude metadata or other hidden data. It means that when the party submits a printout from the web browser screen such a printout can hardly be recognized as reliable electronic evidence or the basis for the expert's verification of authenticity. The printout is nothing but a copy of the screen display. It can be modified in a very simple manner because no special software or hardware requirements are required for this purpose.

Member States example

The Court of Appeal of Lithuania decided that instant copies of computer screen (screenshots) are not trustworthy (27 April 2018, Case No. e2A-226-516/2018).

http://liteko.teismai.lt/viesasprendimupaieska/tekstas.aspx?id=fbf43bd0-2c01-41a5-9f69-3be0c2ef3acb

Collection, seizure and transmission

28. Electronic evidence, by its very nature, is fragile and can be altered, damagedor destroyed by improper handling or examination. For these reasons, special precautions may be taken to properly collect this type of evidence. Failure to do so may render it unusable or lead to an inaccurate conclusion. In principle, the parties are responsible for proper collection of electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings. Different types of data may require different methods of collection. Actions taken to secure and collect electronic evidence should not affect the integrity of that evidence. In matters of considerable importance, the parties should consider capturing the electronic evidence with the support of an IT specialist or the notary services. Judges, professionals, including legal practitioners should be aware that data are often stored with network-based services. This include both cloud computing and the online delivery of services.

29. There has been an increase in knowledge and expertise on the part of judges, professionals, including legal practitioners handling the evidence, but specific standards are still missing. Collection and seizure of electronic evidence may need adoption of special tools and procedures by member States. In the meantime, judges, professionals, including legal practitioners should seek to ensure the integrity, confidentiality and security of such data. This includes the retention of secured back-up copies should one of the means of storage fail. It is necessary to retain electronic data in their original format.

30. Although the use of data can be strictly domestic in nature, it is becoming more likely that they may have a cross-border nature, involving other countries. An example is the location in another country of the infrastructure used for the processing or storage of the data or the location of the provider that enables the storage or processing of the data. Direct cooperation between courts and trust or cloud services providers in cross-border cases is to be encouraged. When handling the electronic evidence, judges, professionals, including legal practitioners may take into consideration factors such as the place of establishment of the service provider, the place of processing the data, and the existence of local laws regulating access to the data.

Example of cross-border technology

Data sharing (clouds) is the storage of different parts of a database across various servers that might be located in different physical locations. It has become a common security technique. The global nature of the internet and the growing use of cloud services make it increasingly difficult to assume that access to data is strictly domestic in nature.

31. There are substantial differences between national procedural rules for the taking of evidence. Courts using evidence taken abroad should take those differences into consideration. It is recommended that in cross-border taking of electronic evidence, courts closely co-operate in this matter. A requesting court should be informed about the procedural rules used by the requested court in order to adapt their evaluation of the electronic evidence where appropriate. In particular, the taking of evidence abroad should not result in violation of the basic principles and rights of procedural law, such as equality of arms.

32. The efficiency of the proceedings is improved when it is possible for transmission of electronic evidence to other courts to be carried out in the original format rather than printing it and sending it out. Electronic data transmitted should be accompanied by its metadata. This includes use of additional metadata created by the courts for proper data management purposes and its smooth transmission to other courts. Having structured metadata gives the courts control over the evidence. A copy of electronic evidence should ideally be used for transmission to another court.

33. Encouragement and facilitation of the transmission of electronic evidence by electronic means can be achieved through implementation of common technical standards, files formats and digitisation of domestic judicial and administrative systems. Having regard to the higher risk of destruction of electronic evidence, local procedures should be adopted which permit secure transmission of electronic evidence.

34. Data integrity, survivability and security should be taken into consideration when it comes to transmitting evidence. Reliable services, such as trust services, may be essential, for ensuring proper transmission of electronic evidence. If the transmission requires confidentiality, it may be necessary to apply measures or technical solutions, such as encryption, which ensure access to a secure communication only to authorized persons.

Relevance

35. The amount of evidence which may be required to prove a certain fact may alter, depending on the complexity of the evidence. Unnecessary large amounts of electronic data could be easily provided by a party which would make it difficult or impossible for the court and the other participants to handle effectively. Therefore, active management of electronic evidence by the court with a view to restrict its provision to what is strictly required to decide the case is essential. The active management of data should respect the principle of proportionality. Every request to produce electronic evidence should be considered on its merits, in particular its usefulness for probative purposes. The parties should be entitled to challenge such requests.

36. Judges, legal professionals, including legal practitioners should be aware of the possible need for technical expertise and recognize where further research or additional specialist knowledge, such as expert opinion, may be required. Experts must be competent and have sufficient training to undertake the assigned task.

Reliability

37. Separation of the digital identity from the physical may generate problems related to the reliability of the evidence. In the first place, courts should seek to establish the identity of the author of electronic data. If the applicable law does not specify the manner of establishing the identity, it may be determined in any objective way, such as electronic signature or by checking the e-mail address from which the document was sent.

38. Trust services may provide technological mechanisms that ensure the reliability of evidence. For example, certificates to electronic signatures, sometimes referred to as the “digital ID” of a person, may guarantee both authenticity and integrity of the data. Where the identity of the signatory with an electronic signature is doubtful, a court may request the service provider related to the electronic signature to make a statement in relation to the matters upon which it is competent to provide evidence. Timestamping (certification of time) may be equally important for evidencing the integrity of an electronic data.

Example of trust service

Timestamp is a mechanism that allows to prove the integrity of data. It demonstrates that data existed in a specific moment and have not been modified. The timestamp provides a value to the electronic evidence, as it includes relevant metadata about the moment of its creation.

39. As far as the applicable law allows for it, and subject to the court’s discretion, the acceptance as evidence of all types of electronic evidence is encouraged and recommended for court practice. If there is a dispute, the parties generally identify the issues to be resolved, and unless a party raises the issue of the authenticity of the electronic evidence, the court does not need to raise the issue on its own initiative. Only where a party challenges the electronic evidence, the party seeking to rely on the evidence may be required to demonstrate its authenticity, for example by submitting metadata or seeking an appropriate order to obtain additional data from other persons, such as trust services providers.

40. The specific reference to court’s discretion in guidelines 21 and 22 underlines the important role of court’s discretion in respect of the subject matter of these guidelines.

41. As with any other evidence, a party to the proceedings may contest the evidence. In such case, the said party may request the court to exclude the evidence, for example due to the fact that the author of the data cannot be properly identified. The reliability of electronic data may be proved in any manner, for example, by qualified electronic signatures or other similar methods of identification and ensuring integrity of the data. It is, however, for applicable law, to define the legal effect of electronic signatures, for example by providing that only a qualified electronic signature should have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten (wet ink) signature. For example, the applicable law may require the devices used to generate the signatures to be under the exclusive control of the signatory.

EU qualified electronic signature

Qualified electronic signatures ensuring integrity of data does not need specific analysis of technology used for their creation to be conducted by the court. It is enough to check the register of EU qualified trust services providers.

42. Guideline 23 concerns the burden of proof. More vulnerable persons such as consumers and children may not be technically and/or economically able to produce electronic evidence. Where they are benefited by statutory provisions that ease or reverse the burden of proof, those statutory provisions prevail over the guidelines. Courts should play an active role in cases where vulnerable persons are involved.

43. Depending on the national legal system, the evidential value of public (official) electronic systems that generate electronic evidence is to be respected. For example, data from electronic public registers can be treated as an official document, which results in presumption of its truthfulness. An electronic recording of other proceedings may be treated as reliable representation of the facts and free from the risk of human error (e.g. comparing it to the content being dictated to the protocol by the judge).

Member States examples of the public trust systems

There are specific types of trust services made available at national level such as “Trusted Profile” (Poland), “Electronic archiving and digitalization” (Belgium), “Information/documents long term preservation, LEXNET Platform for exchanging information between the Judicial Bodies and a wide range of legal operators” (Spain).

Storage and preservation

44. Storage within the meaning of these guidelines relates to the duration of the civil or administrative proceedings. Electronic evidence may be stored in the courts during the period of the proceedings, for example, on portable devices (memory cards), servers, back-up systems and other places of data storage (including cloud computing). The courts should store electronic evidence in its original format (e.g. not as printouts), in accordance with applicable laws. Cybersecurity issues should be also taken into consideration which means that courts should adopt proactive approaches to protecting the integrity of electronic evidence from cyberthreats, including damage or unauthorized access. By focusing on prevention, courts can prevent cyberthreats from affecting the integrity of electronic evidence and reduce overall cybersecurity risks. Regardless of the method used for storage, unauthorized individuals should not be given access to the electronic evidence.

45. Stored electronic evidence can be associated with standardised metadata describing the context of their creation as well as the existing links with other electronic records. The implementation of international standards for metadata ensures a level of consistency in storage of the electronic evidence. Because creation of standardised metadata can be difficult and time consuming, courts may use tools that can help generate the standardised metadata.

Example of solution used to standardised metadata

A number of tools are available for standardised metadata creation. For example, the metadata management tool may generate an XML (eXtensible Markup Language) file containing the metadata related to the electronic evidence. XML files require no advanced software to be professionals. It is both a standardised format and sufficiently flexible to be applied across different information systems. This may simplify both storage and retrieval of the electronic evidence.

In this regard international standards applied to metadata should be followed, such as those published by international standards communities, like ISO (International Organization for Standardization).

46. Guideline 27 concerning the preservation of electronic evidence is applicable both to the storage and the archiving of electronic evidence that takes place after completion of the proceedings. The electronic evidence should be stored and archived in the original form in which it has been created, transmitted, received and which does not materially change the data. The electronic evidence should be available in a readable format during the whole time of the proceedings. The integrity of electronic evidence should be maintained at all stages.

Archiving

47. The guidelines on archiving cover the period after the proceedings and has regard to Recommendation Rec(2003)15 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member States on archiving of electronic documents in the legal sector. National law typically provides retention periods and technical archiving conditions. The systems employed for archiving need to be secure and guarantee traceable use and respect for privacy. Appropriate technical and organisational measures should be implemented in order to ensure the protection of electronic evidence, and to guard against unauthorised access to it. An electronic data carrier, if used, should be provided with an identification certificate containing basic data about it. Such a carrier should be properly protected, especially against loss, harmful effects of chemicals, heat, light, radiation, magnetic or electric fields and against mechanical damage.

48. Archiving services may verify, possibly using electronic signatures or other electronic procedures, that electronic evidence is being archived by qualified specialists or competent organisations and that data have not been altered by them. Both data on electronic signatures with which the electronic documents have been signed, as well as data for verification of those signatures need to be properly archived. Member States should provide the organisations in the legal sector entrusted by law with the duty of archiving, with the necessary resources for the archiving of electronic evidence.

49. Migration means change of the storage medium in order to preserve accessibility to electronic evidence. Neglect of migration may result in unreadability of the data. Electronic documents may be archived by periodic transfer of data from one storage medium to another or from one format to another. Migration should also apply to metadata concerning the archived electronic documents. Migration to new storage medium should take place regularly, taking account for example degradation and wear in the medium in question and before they become obsolete because of the technological development of media and hardware. Migration to new storage medium or format should be carried out, when appropriate, in view of the technological development.

Example of a long-term solution

Data can be migrated to networked devices, such as cloud computing. They are being constantly improved due to technological development of media and hardware. Cloud archiving may provide also greater control over cost by paying for only the space needed.

Example of an outdated solution

CD or DVD or other optical discs become unreadable due to physical or chemical deterioration. The causes of this effect vary from oxidation of the reflective layer, to physical scuffing and abrasion of disc surfaces or edges, including visible scratches, to other kinds of reactions with contaminants.

Awareness-raising, review, training and education

50. Promotion includes wide dissemination of these guidelines to the courts and legal practitioners, its translation into the local languages, organisation of seminars and conferences on electronic evidence.

51. Review of the technical standards related to electronic evidence may include, for example, new means of its storage, preservation and archiving.

52. Access to interdisciplinary training on handling electronic evidence is necessary for judges, professionals, including legal practitioners. Training may cover specific challenges raised by electronic evidence, such as importance of metadata, importance of timestamping and use of cloud computing or blockchain in collection and seizure, need for submission of electronic evidence in the original format, rather than simply scanned images or printouts.

53. Awareness of the wider digital context and use of technologies, such as cloud computing, trust services or blockchain, is important for judges, professionals, including legal practitioners.

54. Knowledge on material and procedural matters in the context of electronic evidence should be an essential part of legal education.

Selected bibliography and other sources

1) Recommendation Rec(2003)15 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member States on archiving of electronic documents in the legal sector;

2) Biasiotti M., Mifsud Bonnici J., Cannataci J., Turchi F. (eds.), Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence across Europe, Springer 2018;

3) Forgó N., Hawellek C., Knoke F., Stoklas J., The Collection of Electronic Evidence in Germany - a Spotlight on Recent Legal Developments and Court Rulings, in: New Technology, Big Data and the Law (ed. Forgó, Fenwick, Corrales), Springer 2017;

4) Morabito V., Business Innovation Through Blockchain. The B³ Perspective, Springer International Publishing AG Cham 2017;

5) Hofmann E., Strewe U., Bosia N., Supply Chain Finance and Blockchain Technology. The Case of Reverse Securitisation, Springer Munich 2018;

6) Singer P., Friedman A., Cybersecurity and cyberwar: What everyone needs to know, Oxford, Oxford University Press 2014;

7) Mason S., The use of electronic evidence in civil and administrative law proceedings and its effect on the rules of evidence and modes of proof. A comparative study and analysis. Report prepared by Stephen Mason assisted by Uwe Rasmussen. Strasbourg, 27 July 2016, CDCJ(2015)14-final;

8) Albert J., Study on possible national legal obstacles to full recognition of electronic processing of performance information on construction products (under the construction products regulation), notably within the regimes of civil liability and evidentiary value, Final General Report, 30-CE-0517177/00-3630-CE-0517177/00-36;

9) W. Schünemann, M. Baumann Editors (ed.), Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity in Europe, Springer International 2017;

10) Voigt P., von dem Bussche A., The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A Practical Guide, Springer International 2017;

11) Mason S., Seng D. (ed.), Electronic Evidence, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for the SAS Humanities Digital Library, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2017;

12) Mason S. (ed.), International Electronic Evidence, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2008;

13) Mason S., Electronic Signatures in Law Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for the SAS Humanities Digital Library, School of Advanced Study, University of London 2016;

14) Mason S., Electronic Disclosure A Casebook for Civil and Criminal Practitioners, PP Publishing 2015;

15) Electronic Evidence: Model Policy Guidelines & Legislative Texts, Establishment of Harmonized Policies for the ICT Market in the ACP countries, HIPCAR project “Enhancing Competiveness in the Caribbean through the Harmonization of ICT Policies, Legislation and Regulatory Procedures 2013, https://www.itu.int;

16) Capriolli E., Droit international de l’économie numérique, Paris, Litec, 2007;

17) Biasiotti M. A., Turchi F., Epifani M., The EVIDENCE Project: bridging the Gap in the Exchange of Digital Evidence Accross Europe, SADFE 2015, http://sadfe2015.safesocietylabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SADFE-2015-Proceedings.pdf (October 2015).

[1] This document has been classified restricted until examination by the Committee of Ministers.