New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

which may lead to serious difficulties in informing him or her about the request made and the remedies available. It is also significant that these remedies are not precisely defined in the EPOR, while the Art. 18 provisions are very general and indicative, which may lead to considerable disproportions between the Member States in the field of protection against malpractice in the issuing of EPOs. There are also some practical considerations that may raise concerns about the functioning of the EPOs, in particular from the point of view of service providers, who will not only have to bear all the costs related to the integration into the decentralised IT system and the processing of requests, but may also be overburdened with an overwhelming number of requests, which may be particularly troublesome for smaller providers. The same argument applies to enforcement authorities, some of which are likely to receive a relatively large number of notifications, further overloading already overburdened judicial systems. 170 Conclusion Direct cross-border requests for disclosure of electronic evidence by ICT service providers constitute a significant modifying factor in EU criminal cooperation law, as they represent the first instance of private actors being included within the mutual legal cooperation and recognition system. The possibility of sending the European Production Orders and European Preservation Orders directly to the addressees - service providers - together with the short deadlines for their execution and the fact that the entire procedure can be carried out via the Internet, will lead to a significant reduction in the time needed to obtain electronic evidence, which is particularly valuable due to its volatile nature. Due to the lack of previous assessments by two judicial authorities, including the important role of the enforcing authority, which examined the order to ensure that it complied with the fundamental principles of criminal procedure, including the rights of the suspect, the EPOs are considered by some researchers to be an instrument of potentially excessive surveillance, providing law enforcement authorities with an unprecedented opportunity to circumvent the procedural safeguards related to the principle of proportionality. It seems that future practice in the application of these Regulations should address and resolve these doubts, adjust them accordingly and endeavour to minimise the possible risk of violation of fundamental principles of criminal procedure and the rights of its participants. It is worth remembering that the provisions of the discussed regulations will be applicable from 18 August 2026, which gives their addressees sufficient time to consider and identify possible problems and controversies related to their operation, as well as to prepare for their introduction, both in terms of technical issues and with regard to the development of guidelines for good practice. Nonetheless, it is still advisable to wait patiently for the evaluation report on the Regulation, due by 18 August 2029, which will show whether the concerns expressed have been justified.

170 This applies especially to Ireland, being the seat of the most of European branches of global ICT companies.

57