Measure Implementation

Is this measure possible in your Member State under International Judicial Cooperation?

The investigation should concern one of the following criminal offences (Art. 588 ter a in relationship with art.579.1 Criminal Procedural Code): a) Intentional crimes punished with a maximum of, at least, three years’ imprisonment sentence. b) Offences committed within a criminal group or organisation. c) Terrorist offences General requirements: 1. principles of speciality (a measure is related to the investigation of a specific crime), 2. adequacy (the objective and subjective scope and the duration of the measure depending on its usefulness), 3. exceptional nature and necessity (where the investigation, given its nature, does not have other measures available which are less onerous to the fundamental rights of the accused, and when discovering of the facts is seriously hampered without recourse to this measure) 4. proportionality of the measure (when the detriment of the rights and interests at stake is not greater than the benefit that their adoption provides for public interest and third parties). 5. judicial authorization, specifying the technical means to be used. 6. Obligation of providers, agents and persons to provide the assistance and cooperation needed to the judge, the Public Prosecution Service, or members of the Judiciary Police appointed. Section 2. Inclusion of electronic traffic data or similar into the proceedings Article 588 b. x. Data held in service providers’ computerised files. 1. Electronic data held by service providers or persons facilitating communication in compliance with the legislation on retention of data relating to electronic communications, or on their own initiative for commercial reasons, or other type, and which are linked to communications processes, may only be assigned for incorporation into the proceedings with judicial authority. 2. Where knowledge of these data is essential to the investigation, the competent judge will be requested for authorisation to gather the information appearing on the computerised files of the service provider, including intelligent data searching or crosssearching, as long as the nature of the data to be discovered and the reasons justifying the assignment are specified. Section 3. Access to data needed to identify users, terminals and connectivity devices Article 588 b. xi. Identification by IP address. Where, in their work on prevention and discovery of crimes committed on the internet, members of the Judiciary Police have access to an IP address which is being used to commit a crime and do not have the identification and location of the associated equipment or connectivity device, or personal identification data for the user, they will request the examining magistrate to order the agents subject to the duty to cooperate, according to article 588 b. v., to assign the data permitting identification and location of the terminal or connectivity device and identification of the suspect. Article 588 b. xii. Identification of terminals by capturing identification codes for the device or its components. 1. If, within the framework of an investigation, it is not possible to obtain a specific subscriber number and this is essential for the purposes of the investigation, members of the Judiciary Police may use technical devices which allow them to find out the identification codes, or technical labels, of the telecommunications device, or any of its components, such as IMSI or IMEI numbers and, in general, any other technical means that, in accordance with the latest technology, is suitable to identify the communications equipment used or the card used to access the telecommunications network. 2. Once the codes allowing identification of the device, or any of its components, have been obtained, members of the Judiciary Police may apply to the competent judge to intercept communications under the terms provided for in article 588 b. iv. The application must make the user of the devices referred to in the previous paragraph known to the court. The court will issue a reasoned decision granting or refusing the application for intervention within the time limit provided for in article 588 a. iii. Article 588 b. xiii. Identification of owners or terminals or connectivity devices. Where, when carrying out their duties, the Public Prosecution Service, or the Judiciary Police, need to know the owner of a telephone number or any other means of communication, or, conversely, need the telephone number or identity details of any means of communication, they may go directly to the service providers for telecommunications, access to a telecommunications network or information society services, who will be under the obligation to comply with the request, with a warning about committing the offence of disobedience.

Legal Framework

International legal framework applicable for this measure in your Member State

Spanish Criminal Procedural Law, art. 588 ter j, k, l, m Spanish Act 23/2014 of 20 November 2014, on mutual recognition of judicial decision in criminal matters in the European Union refers to this measure in its Title X, chapter III, section 2º

Competent Authority

* receive the request/decision for judicial cooperation

* receive the request/decision for judicial cooperation The Prosecutor's Office in the case of EIO (see atlas) and in the case of MLA the Public Prosecutor's Office or Investigating Judge. As regards to incoming EIOs the Spanish Public Prosecutor is the new receiving authority or SpOC in accordance to Article 187 (2) of Law 23/2014 on mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters in the European Union as amended in 2018 for the implementation of the EIO 2014 Directive As regards to MLA requests issued by DK or IE the receiving authorities could be either the Public Prosecutor or the Investigating Judge * execute/recognise the measure (if other than the receiving authority) Investigating Judge and Central Investigating Judge

Accepted languages

Accepted languages for the request/decision

The only accepted language is Spanish.

Execution deadline

Deadlines for the execution of the request/decision (where applicable)

-There is not a deadline for the execution of rogatory letters or MLA. -The decision to recognise and execute the European Investigation Order (EIO) or, where applicable, to refuse to execute it shall be taken as soon as possible and at the latest within 30 days of its receipt by the competent authority. Where, in a specific case, the competent Spanish authority finds that the time limit for the recognition and enforcement of the order cannot be met, it shall inform the issuing authority without delay, giving the reasons and stating the estimated time needed to take the decision. In this case, the time limit for issuing the decision on recognition and enforcement may be extended up to a maximum of 30 days. The Spanish competent authority shall carry out the execution of the investigative measure without delay and at the latest within 90 days after the adoption of the decision on recognition and enforcement.

Concise legal practical information

Special requirements

There are no different rules when cooperating outside EU

Last reviewed on 29 June 2022 by EJN Secretariat

NEXT MEASURE

  • Electronic evidence, interception and surveillance (A.50 - A.56)
  • A.53 Preservation and production of electronic evidence
next

Export this Judicial Cooperation Measure

File format