Criminal Justice (International Cooperation on Electronic Evidence and Other Matters) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-07
============================================================

Catherine Ardagh (FF), Dublin South-Central

I regret that I cannot accept the Senator's amendment. The e-evidence package provides for co-operation between member states of the European Union. It does not allow one member state to unilaterally suspend its operation. The amendment would be in clear breach of our legal obligations under EU law.
On a point of principle, giving a member of the Executive the power to interfere with the exercise of judicial functions by a judicial authority within the European Union would be a breach of the democratic principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law. The director is being made independent specifically to prevent any suggestion that he or she might be subject to the influence or a direction from a member of the Executive as regards to the implementation of judicial orders. The e-evidence regulation already contains certain safeguards, including the provision in Article 1(3) which states that the regulation shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and legal principles as enshrined in the charter and in Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union.
The regulation also has specific safeguards where, under Article 8 the Irish enforcing authority must be notified of incoming European production orders, unless they relate to an offence in the issuing state committed by a person who resides in that state an execution can be refused. Article 10 provides a channel whereby the service provider may alert the Irish enforcing authority when it considers that the order would interfere with freedom of expression. Article 12 provides for a range of grounds on which an enforcing authority may refuse to execute a European production order. These grounds include: where the data is protected by immunities or privilege under the law of the enforcing state or where the data requested are covered by rules relating to freedom of the press or freedom of expression of other media where execution would result in a manifest breach of fundamental rights, as provided for by Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; where the execution order would violate the principle of ne bis in idem whereby a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence; and where the conduct for which the order has been issued does not constitute an offence under the law of the enforcing state save in circumstances where the offence is listed in Annex 9 of the regulation and carries a maximum custodial sentence of at least three years in the issuing state.
In addition to the safeguards already outlined, I would also point to Recital 11 of the regulation, which confirms that nothing in the regulation should be interpreted as prohibiting the refusal of a European production order by an enforcing authority where there are reasons to believe that the order has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of a person's gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, nationality, language or political opinions. For the reasons I have just outlined, I cannot accept the amendment.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-07/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:09+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-07