In the face of concerns raised by certain member states (see EUROPE 11976), European Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová promised European ministers on Friday 9 March that the legislative proposal on cross-border access to electronic evidence would be ready in April.
Estonia's Justice Minister Urmas Reinsalu set the tone as he arrived at the meeting of the Justice Council: "the Commission has been a little bit lazy and so we are going to encourage it".
The discussions behind closed doors focused in particular on the new US draft CLOUD Act (see EUROPE 11973). Jourová recognised that this involved an interesting step forwards but she was concerned about the arrangements providing for the possibility for the US administration to conclude executive agreements, which would enable US services suppliers to provide data to foreign "partner" governments.
These arrangements do not provide for the possibility of an agreement between the USA and EU as a whole, thus risking the creation of a fragmentation if member states should conclude bilateral agreements. The UK is reported to have announced that it is now in the process of negotiating an executive agreement with the USA.
"I have received today a very strong mandate to go to the USA and say that the European Commission and European justice ministers wish to have a unified proposal and solution", Jourová told a press conference. She will moreover visit Washington on 20 and 21 March.
In addition to the concerns about the US draft law, several ministers, including Koen Geens from Belgium, regretted the fact that the USA has dared to take the step before the EU in this domain.
This discussion was also the opportunity for the ministers to state their expectations as to the content of the future text. There was a request for safeguards in order not to leave any margin of manoeuvre to the suppliers of digital services on how to apply the legal decisions.
Several ministers are also reported to have underlined the need to have arrangements to settle the conflicts of law between member states. Others, especially Italy and France, are said to have insisted on the fact that the instrument chosen should be a regulation and not a directive in order to ensure uniform implementation of future legislation. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)