Recital 8

Due to the way in which network-based services are provided, judicial cooperation requests are often addressed to States which are hosts to a large number of service providers. Furthermore, the number of requests has multiplied due to the fact that network-based services are being increasingly used. Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ⁽⁶⁾ provides for the possibility of issuing an EIO for the purpose of gathering evidence in another Member State. In addition, the Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union ⁽⁷⁾ (the ‘Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters’) also provides for the possibility of requesting evidence from another Member State. However, the procedures and timelines provided for in Directive 2014/41/EU establishing the EIO and in the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters might not be appropriate for electronic evidence, which is more volatile and could more easily and quickly be deleted. Obtaining electronic evidence using judicial cooperation channels often takes a long time, resulting in situations where subsequent leads might no longer be available. Furthermore, there is no harmonised framework for cooperation with service providers, while certain third-country providers accept direct requests for data other than content data as permitted by their applicable national law. As a consequence, Member States increasingly rely on voluntary direct cooperation channels with service providers where available, and they apply different national tools, conditions and procedures. For content data, some Member States have taken unilateral action, while others continue to rely on judicial cooperation.