DOCTRINES : PROGRAMME DE RECHERCHE INTERNATIONAL - AVOCATS DE LA DEFENSE - COMPARAISON DE 15 REGIMES DE PROTECTION - DROITS FONDAMENTAUX - INVESTIGATIONS INFORMATIQUES - BONNES PRATIQUES

Digital evidence searches in competition investigations: Best Practices for effective fundamental rights Results of an international survey among defense lawyers

Un programme de recherche international regroupant des avocats de la défense a été constitué sous l’égide de Concurrences afin de comparer les protections mises en place dans 15 régimes différents pour assurer le respect des droits fondamentaux dans le cadre des investigations informatiques. Une première série de Bonnes Pratiques émerge de ce programme de recherche. En effet, au-delà des importantes différences structurelles qui existent entre ces régimes, des protections de même nature sont disponibles dans un grand nombre d’entre eux. Tous les régimes devraient selon nous prendre en compte ces Bonnes Pratiques, tout particulièrement au sein de l’Union européenne, compte tenu des différences très significatives qui subsistent entre régimes nationaux.

1. In April 2006, the International Competition Network published Chapter 3 of its Anti-Cartel Enforcement Manual dedicated to Digital Evidence Gathering. [1] This Chapter aims to provide an overview of practices and procedures for digital evidence gathering of ICN member agencies. It is based on information collected from ICN members in June 2005 by means of a survey to understand better the range of ICN member's approaches to digital evidence gathering and to identify good practices and procedures in that respect. 2. Unsurprisingly for a chapter based on questionnaires sent to enforcement authorities and agencies, it provides detailed information on methods, tools and techniques. It is however less instructive on the protection of fundamental rights and privileges in this respect.

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Mayer Brown (Paris)
  • Preslmayr
  • Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer (Dusseldorf)
  • Ashurst (Madrid)
  • Swedish Competition Authority (Stockholm)
  • Lenz & Staehelin (Geneva)
  • Eversheds Sutherland (London)
  • King & Wood Mallesons (London)
  • Loeb & Loeb (Washington, DC)
  • Clifford Chance (Hong Kong)
  • Gomez Acebo & Pombo (Barcelona)
  • Grant & Eisenhofer
  • Gilbert & Tobin
  • Du (Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company - EITC)
  • Boverry Attorneys
  • Lenz & Staehelin (Geneva)
  • Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets (The Hague)
  • Bonelli Erede (Brussels)
  • Mannheimer Swartling (Stockholm)
  • Bonelli Erede (Rome)
  • Maersk (Copenhagen)
  • Bech-Bruun (Aarhus)
  • University Dublin College (UCD)
  • Jones Day (Sydney)
  • Australian Law Reform Commission
  • Carreras, Barsikian, Robertson & Partners

Quotation

Nathalie Jalabert-Doury, Serge Bourque, Benoît Merkt, Martijn Snoep, Massimo Merola, Tommy Pettersson, Sara Lembo, Camilla Jain Holtse, Christian Nielsen, Suzanne Kingston, Nick Taylor, Shreeya Smith, Kiri Tahana, Graeme Edgerton, Dieter Hauck, Martin Klusmann, Teresa Lorca Morales, Christian Hagerman, Rayan Houdrouge, Lesley Farrell, Michael Reiss, Nathan J. Muyskens, Angie Ng, Inigo Igartua Arregui, David T. Fischer, Ana Barros Feiteira, Digital evidence searches in competition investigations: Best Practices for effective fundamental rights Results of an international survey among defense lawyers, December 2009, Concurrences Review N° 4-2009, Art. N° 29118, pp. 65-73

Visites 7295

All reviews