{"id":2301,"date":"2026-04-10T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-10T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/resources\/blog\/e-evidence-vs-mlat\/"},"modified":"2026-10-21T14:21:57","modified_gmt":"2026-10-21T13:21:57","slug":"e-evidence-vs-mlat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/resources\/blog\/e-evidence-vs-mlat\/","title":{"rendered":"e-Evidence vs. MLAT : Ce qui a chang\u00e9 pour les prestataires de services dans l'UE"},"content":{"rendered":"

Until now, a prosecutor in France who needed data from a provider in Germany had to use judicial cooperation: since 2017 mainly the European Investigation Order (up to 120 days), and outside the EU, mutual legal assistance (MLA\/MLAT)<\/strong>, which takes about 10 months on average according to the European Commission. These channels worked \u2014 eventually \u2014 but they were built for paper-era investigations, not for cloud-era cybercrime, ransomware, online fraud or cross-border terrorism. By the time a provider finally received a request, suspects had often disappeared and ephemeral data had been lost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le R\u00e8glement (UE) 2023\/1543 relatif aux preuves \u00e9lectroniques<\/a><\/strong>, which has applied directly since 18 ao\u00fbt 2026<\/strong>, fundamentally changes that picture. It adds a fast, harmonised, judicial-to-provider channel alongside the slower EIO and MLA routes, which operates in days \u2014 and in emergencies, in hours. For every electronic communications, hosting, cloud, marketplace and online platform provider operating in the EU, this is the most significant shift in cross-border evidence law in a generation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article explains, in practical terms, what changed between the MLAT world and the e-Evidence world, what it means operationally, and how service providers should reshape their compliance programmes now that the Regulation applies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

L'ancien monde : comment fonctionnaient les MLAT (et pourquoi ils ont connu des difficult\u00e9s)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Un MLAT est un trait\u00e9 bilat\u00e9ral ou multilat\u00e9ral de droit international public qui permet \u00e0 un \u00c9tat de demander une coop\u00e9ration judiciaire - y compris la production de preuves - \u00e0 un autre \u00c9tat. Dans la pratique, une demande d'obtention de preuves \u00e9lectroniques dans le cadre d'un trait\u00e9 d'entraide judiciaire a suivi un long cheminement en plusieurs \u00e9tapes :<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Un procureur de la \u00c9tat demandeur<\/strong> a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 une commission rogatoire officielle et l'a soumise \u00e0 l'autorit\u00e9 centrale de son pays (g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement le minist\u00e8re de la justice).<\/li>\n
  2. The Central Authority reviewed and translated the request, then forwarded it to its counterpart Central Authority (or, under some treaties, through diplomatic channels) in the \u00c9tat requis<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
  3. L'autorit\u00e9 centrale r\u00e9ceptrice transmet la demande au tribunal local comp\u00e9tent ou au procureur.<\/li>\n
  4. L'autorit\u00e9 locale a \u00e9mis une ordonnance nationale contre le prestataire de services.<\/li>\n
  5. Le fournisseur a produit les donn\u00e9es, qui ont ensuite \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9achemin\u00e9es \u00e0 travers la m\u00eame cha\u00eene en sens inverse.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Chaque \u00e9tape ajoutait des semaines ou des mois. Les exigences en mati\u00e8re de traduction et de formalit\u00e9s ajoutaient encore au retard. Lorsque le fournisseur sollicit\u00e9 re\u00e7oit enfin une ordonnance nationale ex\u00e9cutoire, l'enqu\u00eate sous-jacente a souvent \u00e9volu\u00e9, les donn\u00e9es peuvent avoir d\u00e9pass\u00e9 les d\u00e9lais de conservation ou le suspect a franchi une autre fronti\u00e8re. Des \u00e9tudes ont montr\u00e9 \u00e0 plusieurs reprises que la dur\u00e9e moyenne du cycle du MLAT \u00e9tait d'environ 10 mois<\/strong>, Dans de nombreux cas, cette p\u00e9riode s'\u00e9tend bien au-del\u00e0 d'un an.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Le nouveau monde : Ordonnances directes dans le cadre du r\u00e8glement de l'UE sur les preuves \u00e9lectroniques<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Le r\u00e8glement sur les preuves \u00e9lectroniques introduit deux nouveaux instruments - le European Production Order<\/strong> et le European Preservation Order<\/strong>, transmitted as standardised certificates (EPOC and EPOC-PR) \u2014 that judicial authorities can issue directement \u00e0 un prestataire de services<\/strong> in another Member State, without going through diplomatic or governmental intermediaries. Orders travel through the EU’s decentralised IT system, whose Member State access points use e-CODEX<\/strong>. Providers connect to their Member State’s national system, either manually through the web-based interface or automatically through an API based on ETSI TS 104 144.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Prenons le m\u00eame sc\u00e9nario : un procureur fran\u00e7ais enqu\u00eatant sur une attaque par ransomware visant des h\u00f4pitaux de l'Union europ\u00e9enne a besoin des donn\u00e9es des abonn\u00e9s et donn\u00e9es de trafic<\/a> held by a German hosting provider. Under e-Evidence, the prosecutor has the order validated by a judge, issues a European Production Order and sends it directly to the provider’s designated establishment or legal representative; because traffic data are requested, the German enforcing authority is notified at the same time. The provider validates the order, extracts the data, and delivers it back through the decentralised IT system. Evidence larger than 25 MB, and any traffic with Member States whose national components are not yet live, goes by secure alternative means with a hash-protected manifest. Le d\u00e9lai standard est de 10 jours. Le d\u00e9lai d'urgence est de 8 heures.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    e-Evidence vs MLAT : Une comparaison c\u00f4te \u00e0 c\u00f4te<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    Dimension<\/th>MLAT<\/th>R\u00e8glement de l'UE sur les preuves \u00e9lectroniques<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
    Base juridique<\/strong><\/td>Trait\u00e9 bilat\u00e9ral \/ multilat\u00e9ral<\/td>R\u00e8glement de l'UE, directement applicable<\/td><\/tr>
    Destinataire de la demande<\/strong><\/td>Autorit\u00e9 d'un \u00c9tat \u00e9tranger<\/td>Provider’s designated establishment \/ legal representative (directly)<\/td><\/tr>
    Canal de transmission<\/strong><\/td>Autorit\u00e9s diplomatiques \/ centrales<\/td>EU decentralised IT system (e-CODEX-based)<\/td><\/tr>
    D\u00e9lai type<\/strong><\/td>MLA: ~10 months on average; EIO: up to 120 days<\/td>10 jours standard \/ 8 heures d'urgence<\/td><\/tr>
    Format<\/strong><\/td>Commission rogatoire en forme libre<\/td>Certificats normalis\u00e9s EPOC \/ EPOC-PR<\/td><\/tr>
    R\u00f4le du prestataire<\/strong><\/td>B\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire d'une ordonnance familiale<\/td>Destinataire direct de l'ordre \u00e9tranger<\/td><\/tr>
    Sanctions \u00e0 l'encontre des prestataires<\/strong><\/td>Droit interne de l'\u00c9tat requis<\/td>Pecuniary penalties of up to 2% of total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year<\/td><\/tr>
    Pr\u00e9servation des donn\u00e9es<\/strong><\/td>Ad hoc, en fonction de la juridiction<\/td>EPOC-PR harmonis\u00e9 (60 + 30 jours)<\/td><\/tr>
    Champ d'application g\u00e9ographique<\/strong><\/td>D'\u00c9tat \u00e0 \u00c9tat uniquement<\/td>Providers offering services in the EU (substantial connection); all Member States except Denmark<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Ce qui ne change pas - et les domaines o\u00f9 les MLAT restent importants<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Le r\u00e8glement e-Evidence n'abolit pas les MLAT. Ils restent le principal m\u00e9canisme pour les demandes de preuves impliquant des pays non membres de l'UE et continuent de s'appliquer dans de nombreux sc\u00e9narios de justice p\u00e9nale en dehors du champ d'application du r\u00e8glement. Au sein de l'UE, les procureurs peuvent toujours s'appuyer sur la d\u00e9cision d'enqu\u00eate europ\u00e9enne (DEE) pr\u00e9vue par la directive 2014\/41\/UE pour des mesures d'enqu\u00eate plus larges. Le r\u00e8glement relatif aux preuves \u00e9lectroniques est mieux compris en tant que instrument sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 et plus rapide<\/strong> pour un besoin sp\u00e9cifique - la production et la conservation de preuves \u00e9lectroniques - qui s'ajoute \u00e0 la bo\u00eete \u00e0 outils existante.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pour les prestataires de services non europ\u00e9ens, l'effet pratique est que les demandes des autorit\u00e9s de l'UE passeront de plus en plus par e-Evidence plut\u00f4t que par le MLAT - \u00e0 condition que le prestataire offre des services dans l'UE et qu'il ait, ou d\u00e9signe, un repr\u00e9sentant l\u00e9gal dans un \u00c9tat membre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ce que cela signifie pour les prestataires de services dans la pratique<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Switching from a months-long cooperation process (about 10 months for MLA, up to 120 days for an EIO) to a 10-day (or 8-hour) direct process is not just faster \u2014 it is a different operating model. Compliance can no longer be a quarterly side-task handled by a single privacy lawyer. It has to be embedded into engineering, security operations and customer support. The implications fall into four broad areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Prise et validation automatis\u00e9es des commandes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Manual mailbox-based intake will not scale. You need an authenticated connection to your Member State’s national system (via the web-based interface or an API based on ETSI TS 104 144) and an intake process that can receive, time-stamp, validate signatures, check issuing-authority credentials and route orders to the right responders. Solutions such as the ICS Plate-forme de conformit\u00e9 e-Evidence<\/a> sont con\u00e7us pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment pour ce flux de travail, mais les fournisseurs peuvent \u00e9galement les construire en interne s'ils disposent de la capacit\u00e9 d'ing\u00e9nierie n\u00e9cessaire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2. Extraction standardis\u00e9e des donn\u00e9es dans tous les syst\u00e8mes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The Regulation distinguishes between subscriber, identification, traffic and content data, each with different thresholds. Your data inventory must map each system to the categories of data it holds, and your extraction tooling must deliver results through the decentralised IT system (web interface or the API based on ETSI TS 104 144) or, where that is not possible, by secure alternative means, always with integrity protection and in formats the issuing authority can process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3. Disponibilit\u00e9 op\u00e9rationnelle 24 heures sur 24, 7 jours sur 7<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    La fen\u00eatre d'urgence de 8 heures s'applique \u00e0 toute heure de la journ\u00e9e, tous les jours de l'ann\u00e9e. Cela n\u00e9cessite des intervenants juridiques et techniques nomm\u00e9s et disponibles sur appel, des manuels d'ex\u00e9cution, des voies d'escalade et des exercices de simulation r\u00e9p\u00e9t\u00e9s. Pour les organisations qui ne peuvent pas maintenir cette empreinte en interne, un service d'intervention d'urgence peut \u00eatre mis en place. Legal Representative service<\/a><\/strong> (for providers outside the EU), combined with managed operations, is increasingly the pragmatic answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    4. Pistes d'audit infalsifiables<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Chaque action - r\u00e9ception, validation, acheminement interne, extraction, examen et livraison - doit \u00eatre consign\u00e9e dans une piste d'audit suffisamment solide pour \u00eatre admise comme preuve et pour d\u00e9montrer, apr\u00e8s coup, que vous avez respect\u00e9 les d\u00e9lais, la minimisation et le champ d'application sp\u00e9cifique de la commande.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    P\u00e9nalit\u00e9s : Pourquoi la marge de man\u0153uvre de l'\u00e8re MLAT a disparu<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Under MLAT, friction in the system was tolerated because everyone \u2014 investigators, providers, courts \u2014 knew it was slow. The e-Evidence Regulation has no such slack. Member States are required to impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, with pecuniary penalties of up to 2% of the provider’s total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year<\/strong>, imposed by the enforcing authority. Repeated or systemic failures can also trigger court orders, regulatory action by national competent authorities and serious reputational damage with enterprise customers and regulators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Interaction avec le GDPR, le NIS2 et la loi sur les services num\u00e9riques<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    e-Evidence does not override the GDPR. Disclosures must remain lawful, minimised and properly logged in records of processing. Where the provider is in scope of the NIS2 Directive, security controls and incident handling must also align with it, and intermediary service providers<\/a> (other than micro and small enterprises) must report orders received from Member State authorities in their DSA transparency reports. A modern compliance programme treats these regimes as overlapping rather than competing \u2014 the same intake, audit and minimisation infrastructure can serve all of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Questions fr\u00e9quemment pos\u00e9es<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Pour une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence plus d\u00e9taill\u00e9e, voir notre site d\u00e9di\u00e9 FAQ e-Evidence<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Le r\u00e8glement europ\u00e9en sur les preuves \u00e9lectroniques remplace-t-il les trait\u00e9s d'entraide judiciaire ?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Non. Il les compl\u00e8te. Les trait\u00e9s d'entraide judiciaire restent en vigueur, notamment pour la coop\u00e9ration avec les pays tiers. Au sein de l'UE, e-Evidence offre une voie sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9e et plus rapide pour la production et la conservation de preuves \u00e9lectroniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Un procureur d'un \u00c9tat membre peut-il vraiment commander des donn\u00e9es directement \u00e0 un fournisseur d'un autre \u00c9tat membre ?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Yes. That is the central innovation of the Regulation. Subject to the safeguards and grounds for refusal in the Regulation, a competent judicial authority issues a European Production Order that the provider must execute directly, without first going through the authorities of the receiving State. For traffic and content data, that State’s enforcing authority is notified in parallel and has 10 days (96 hours in emergencies) to raise a ground for refusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    e-Evidence s'applique-t-il aux fournisseurs non europ\u00e9ens ?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Yes \u2014 any provider offering services in the EU (with a substantial connection, such as a significant number of EU users or targeting EU markets) is in scope and must appoint a legal representative in a Member State where it offers services to receive and act on orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Que se passe-t-il si mon organisation ne peut pas respecter le d\u00e9lai de 8 heures ?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Missed deadlines can lead to enforcement by the competent authority of the enforcing State, including fines of up to 2% of global annual turnover. If you cannot meet a deadline, report the reasons on the Annex III form before the deadline expires. Documented, proportionate efforts are your main mitigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    De la conformit\u00e9 \u00e0 l'\u00e8re MLAT aux op\u00e9rations pr\u00eates \u00e0 fournir des preuves \u00e9lectroniques<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Le passage du MLAT \u00e0 l'e-Evidence est, \u00e0 la base, un passage du MLAT \u00e0 l'e-Evidence. occasionnel, lent, sur papier<\/em> coop\u00e9ration pour continu, rapide, ax\u00e9 sur les logiciels<\/em> cooperation. Service providers that thrived under the MLAT model \u2014 relying on legacy email queues and ad-hoc legal review \u2014 are already struggling now that the Regulation applies. Those that invest now in Op\u00e9rations de conformit\u00e9 pr\u00eates \u00e0 fournir des preuves \u00e9lectroniques<\/a> ne se contenteront pas d'\u00e9viter les sanctions ; ils transformeront la pr\u00e9paration \u00e0 l'application de la loi en un signal de confiance pour les entreprises clientes et les r\u00e9gulateurs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Si vous souhaitez une \u00e9valuation ind\u00e9pendante de votre \u00e9tat de pr\u00e9paration, ICS vous propose une \u00e9valuation compl\u00e8te de votre \u00e9tat de pr\u00e9paration. \u00c9valuation de la conformit\u00e9 \u00e0 e-Evidence<\/a><\/strong> covering legal scope, technical infrastructure and operational processes \u2014 together with a clear roadmap to close any gaps now that the Regulation applies. Contactez ICS aujourd'hui<\/strong><\/a> pour programmer le v\u00f4tre.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Until now, a prosecutor in France who needed data from a provider in Germany had to use judicial cooperation: since […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":2556,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-buyers-guides-comparisons"],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/ic-services.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e-evidence-vs-mlat.jpg",1600,2133,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/ic-services.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e-evidence-vs-mlat-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/ic-services.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e-evidence-vs-mlat-225x300.jpg",225,300,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/ic-services.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e-evidence-vs-mlat-768x1024.jpg",768,1024,true],"large":["https:\/\/ic-services.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e-evidence-vs-mlat-768x1024.jpg",768,1024,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/ic-services.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e-evidence-vs-mlat-1152x1536.jpg",1152,1536,true],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/ic-services.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e-evidence-vs-mlat-1536x2048.jpg",1536,2048,true],"trp-custom-language-flag":["https:\/\/ic-services.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e-evidence-vs-mlat-9x12.jpg",9,12,true]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"David Son","author_link":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/author\/david\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Until now, a prosecutor in France who needed data from a provider in Germany had to use judicial cooperation: since […]","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2301","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2301"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2301\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2740,"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2301\/revisions\/2740"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ic-services.io\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}