Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter VIII. The basic features of the Hungarian evidence system • The means of evidence in general
›
8.7. Electronic data

8.7. Electronic data

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In legal literature, the designation of electronic data as an independent means of evidence is highly controversial. According to Erdei, its designation as an independent means of evidence was decided only by “legislative will, which is, however, difficult to justify in terms of content”,1 and according to Matus, there is still no obstacle to simply classifying the data carrier as a material means of evidence.2 As a preliminary point, I would note that electronic data was also treated as a material means of evidence in Act XIX of 1998.3 This was also supported by the interpretative provisions of that legislation, which defined as tangible evidence (also) any object which records data by technical, chemical or other means.4 In principle, electronic data still fully meets these criteria today.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

However, “digital evidence raises a number of questions that have not yet been answered in a coherent and satisfactory way," Sorbán said.5 For example, there are still questions about what kind of data and objects we need to include. According to Varga, photographs, films, video and audio recordings, computer data and electronic signals definitely fall into this category. 6

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

There are various reasons given in the literature for the ‘self-autonomy’ of electronic data, but perhaps the most accepted reason is that their acquisition and retention usually requires specific procedural rules. It is no coincidence that most of the amendments made to Act XIX of 1998 relate to IT matters.7 In fact, in the application of the former CPC , a number of practical problems arose with regard to the definition of electronic data or the scope of the seizure (e.g. the seizure of the whole or only a part of the data medium).8 “In particular, investigative authorities have been criticised for not properly obtaining data stored on IT devices, which in many cases meant that the entire IT device or server was seized even if it would have been sufficient to seize the data by copying it.”9 This has raised concerns not only about expediency but also about constitutionality in general. 10

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

According to the explanatory memorandum of the Act, “one of the explicit aims of the Act is to create a criminal procedure that is capable of responding to the challenges of the future. The definition of the new means of evidence is therefore not an end in itself, as the electronic data is based on procedural acts, such as seizure, which are regulated in further detailed rules.”11 It can be concluded from this that the separate designation of electronic data is not the purpose of the amendments, but merely a means to an end, as it also plays a role in more precise regulation of other procedural acts (e.g. coercive measures).12 However, the explanatory memorandum also refers to the fact that “the law has opted for a separate designation of electronic data for the reason that the category of electronic data cannot always be treated in the same way as physical objects in the regulation of certain criminal procedural acts. In those cases where common provisions can be made for electronic data and physical evidence, the law treats electronic data as physical evidence unless otherwise provided.”13

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The new CPC provides for electronic data in the following short section:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • Electronic data is any representation of facts, information or concepts in a form suitable for processing by an information system, including a program that provides a function to be performed by the information system. Where this Act refers to tangible evidence, it shall be understood to include electronic data, unless otherwise provided for in this Act. 14
  • Information system: equipment providing for the automatic processing, management, storage and transmission of data, or a set of interconnected such equipment. 15
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

As far as the practical aspects of the subject are concerned, it is important to point out that the consideration of electronic data by law enforcement requires a certain level of IT skills. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are still some people in the judiciary who have no such practical knowledge.16 In fact, “digital data […] requires specialised handling and analysis.”17 Because of these shortcomings, and in order to decide on technical computer issues, it is clear that the use of IT experts is likely to become more widespread in the near future.18 This will be particularly the case for the investigative profession, in terms of the search for and interpretation of digital clues.19 According to Máté, the use of IT experts by investigating authorities may be particularly justified in the case of the search of computer systems during searches.20 However, the use of such experts may also be necessary during various interrogations, as the technical terminology used may need to be clarified or to help the member of the investigating authority to formulate the relevant questions accurately.21

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The current CPC follows a coherent regulation, as it now deals with the rules on the seizure of electronic data and the obligation to preserve electronic data under a single title. In particular, the “retention order” raises specific issues, which is undoubtedly a less severe measure than seizure, causing less legal prejudice to the – innocent – holder, and which precedes seizure in time.22 What is certain is that the ordering party is obliged, immediately after the imposition of the preservation order, to start a scan of the electronic data and, if the data or part of the data is subsequently needed, to decide on another way of executing the seizure (and if there is no need for the seizure, the preservation order should be lifted). 23

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Overall, I think that the designation of electronic data as a separate means of evidence is justified, despite the fact that it meets all the general criteria of the material means of evidence in terms of its criteria. This statement is particularly true because (1) the CPC already contains an extremely large number of IT-based provisions, which can only be expected to be further expanded, and (2) clearer (special) rules can be achieved with regard to the acquisition, handling and preservation of such data if the legislator includes the relevant norms in the context of an independent means of evidence (e.g. electronic data).
1 Árpád Erdei: A bizonyítás. [The Proof.] In:Ervin Belovics – Árpád Erdei (eds.): A büntetőeljárási törvény magyarázata. [Explanation of the Code of Criminal Procedure.] Budapest, HVG-ORAC, 2018. 289.
2 Márk Matus: A számítógépes adat, mint bizonyíték megszerzése. [Computer data as evidence.] In: Róth (2019) ibid. 345.
3 In particular, the legislator has referred to the importance of electronic data in the context of coercive measures, such as search and seizure rules.
4 § 115 (2) para. And if the object recording the data was made for the purpose of proving the reality of a fact, data, the occurrence of an event or the making of a statement, the provisions applicable to the document were applicable. (Art.)
5 Kinga Sorbán: A digitális bizonyíték a büntetőeljárásban. [Digital evidence in criminal proceedings.] Belügyi Szemle, 2016/11. 84.
6 Tibor Bodor – Zsolt Csák – Gábor Somogyi – Erzsébet Szepesi – Gábor Szokolai – Zoltán Varga: A büntetőeljárási törvény magyarázata 1. [Explanation of the Criminal Procedure Act 1.] Budapest, CompLex, 2009. 397.
7 Herke–Fenyvesi–Tremmel (2012) ibid. 104.
8 Balázs Busch: A technikai fejlődés nyújtotta lehetőségek az új büntetőeljárási kódexben. [The opportunities offered by technical progress in the new Code of Criminal Procedure.] Fontes Iuris, 2017/4. 21.
9 Erika Róth: Az elektronikus adat mint új bizonyítási eszköz megjelenése a büntetőeljárási törvényben. [The emergence of electronic data as a new means of evidence in the Code of Criminal Procedure.] https://www.mjsz.uni-miskolc.hu/files/6604/32_rotherika_t%C3%B6rdelt.pdf
10 Tibor Peszleg: Interneten, számítógépen történő nyomrögzítés. [Printing on the Internet, on a computer]. Ügyészek Lapja, 2005/1. 25.
11 Róth (2019) ibid. 348.
12 Róth (2019) ibid. 348.
13 Róth (2019) ibid. 348.
14 § 205 (1) para.
15 § 10 (1) para. point 6
16 Róth (2019) ibid. 349.
17 Balázs Elek: Informatikus szakértés a büntetőeljárásban. [Informatics expertise in criminal proceedings.] Belügyi Szemle, 2014/7–8. 158.
18 Zsolt István Máté: Az igazságügyi informatikai szakértő a büntetőeljárásban. [The forensic IT expert in criminal proceedings.] Doctoral thesis. Pécs, 2017. 216.
19 Peszleg (2005) ibid. 27
20 Zsolt István Máté: A házkutatás – az igazságügyi informatikai szakértő a büntetőeljárásban. [The search – the forensic IT expert in criminal proceedings.] In: Imre Csiszár – Miklós Péter Kőmíves (eds.): Tavaszi szél 2014. Konferenciakötet. [Spring wind. Conference proceedings]. National Association of Doctoral Students, Debrecen, 2014. 154–164.
21 Máté (2014) ibid. 163.
22 Peszleg (2005) ibid. 38.
23 § 316 (9) para.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave