A corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2023/1543, published by the Council on 23 June 2026, corrects six errors in the European Production Order and European Preservation Order framework for electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. The corrections tighten the conditions for issuing orders in urgent cases by removing the alternative ground of non-designation of a legal representative, and fix cross-references and typographical errors.
The corrigendum amends the original regulation adopted on 12 July 2023, which established a system for cross-border access to electronic evidence. The most significant change affects Recital 50 and the annexes: the condition for issuing an order in urgent cases is now solely that the designated establishment or representative did not react within the deadlines, deleting the phrase “or not designated within the deadlines set in Directive (EU) 2023/1544”. This removes the possibility to bypass prior validation when a representative has not been designated.
Article 5(2) corrects a cross-reference from Article 2(3) to Article 2(2), ensuring the necessity and proportionality test for a European Production Order refers to the correct paragraph. Annex I and Annex II, Section B, third checkbox, remove references to Directive (EU) 2023/1544, aligning with the recital change. Annex II, Section F, fourth checkbox, replaces specific data-type text with a general statement that the order was issued in a duly justified urgent case without prior validation. The Spanish version of Article 9(4) corrects a typographical error in the acronym “EPCO-PR” to “EPOC-PR”.
Member States have eight days to submit observations to the Council's legal service. The corrigendum will be published in the Official Journal after European Parliament approval.
The corrigendum primarily affects law enforcement authorities and service providers. For authorities, the removal of the non-designation ground may reduce flexibility in urgent cases, potentially slowing access to evidence when a provider has not designated a representative. For service providers, the change clarifies obligations: they must react within deadlines or face orders without prior validation, but they are no longer at risk of orders based solely on non-designation. The corrections also reduce legal uncertainty by fixing cross-references, benefiting all parties. The impact is moderate, as the changes clarify rather than overhaul the existing framework.