the subject under investigation uses said devices to transmit or receive information,
or when the owner or user of the device collaborates with the person under
investigation for their illegal purposes, or when they benefit from their activity;
and also when the device under investigation is used maliciously by third parties
remotely without the knowledge of its owner [Art. 588c c) CPA].
In its Art. 588c d), which refers to Art. 588b b), the CPA specifies the data that
must be included in the request for a judicial authorization, including the duration of
the measures, for example. The law also specifies the purposes it may have: (a) the
register and recording of the contents of the communication, with explicit mention to
the form or the type of communications involved; (b) data regarding the source or the
destination of the communication in the moment in which it takes place; (c) the
geographical location of the source or destination of the communication; (d) other
traffic data associated or not associated with the communication but which provide
an added value to the communication. In this case, the request shall specify the data
that must be obtained.
This regulation contains a particular rule for cases of urgency, in which the
investigations pursue crimes related to the activity of armed groups or terrorist
units and there are legitimate grounds that make it indispensable to adopt these
measures. In this case, the measure may be authorized by the Minister of the Interior
or, failing this, by the Secretary of State for Security. The competent judge shall be
informed immediately, and they will issue an informed decision in which they
confirm or reject this measure.
All the providers of telecommunications services, of access to a telecommunications network, or of services from the information society, as well as any individual
who in any way contributes to facilitate communications through the telephone or
through any other means of online, logical or virtual communication, are obliged to
give their specific assistance and cooperation to the judge, the Public Prosecutor’s
Office and the judicial police officers in charge of implementing the measures, in
order to facilitate the fulfilment of the authorizations to intercept the communications
[Art. 588c e)].
The maximum initial duration of the intervention is 3 months from the date of the
judicial authorization. This period may be renewed for consecutive 3-month periods
up to a maximum of 18 months, provided that this extension is duly justified [Art.
588c g) and h) CPA]. OL 2/2002 does not establish a maximum duration.
Finally, the CPA establishes, in Art. 588c i), the access of the different parties to
the recordings when the secrecy order is lifted and the validity period of the
intervention has expired.
In the case of OL 2/2002, the Secretary of State and Director of the National
Intelligence Centre must ask the competent judge of the Supreme Court to adopt this
measure, and the judge must issue the decision within a maximum of 72 h (24 h in
case of urgency).
388
F. M. Corvo López
or when the owner or user of the device collaborates with the person under
investigation for their illegal purposes, or when they benefit from their activity;
and also when the device under investigation is used maliciously by third parties
remotely without the knowledge of its owner [Art. 588c c) CPA].
In its Art. 588c d), which refers to Art. 588b b), the CPA specifies the data that
must be included in the request for a judicial authorization, including the duration of
the measures, for example. The law also specifies the purposes it may have: (a) the
register and recording of the contents of the communication, with explicit mention to
the form or the type of communications involved; (b) data regarding the source or the
destination of the communication in the moment in which it takes place; (c) the
geographical location of the source or destination of the communication; (d) other
traffic data associated or not associated with the communication but which provide
an added value to the communication. In this case, the request shall specify the data
that must be obtained.
This regulation contains a particular rule for cases of urgency, in which the
investigations pursue crimes related to the activity of armed groups or terrorist
units and there are legitimate grounds that make it indispensable to adopt these
measures. In this case, the measure may be authorized by the Minister of the Interior
or, failing this, by the Secretary of State for Security. The competent judge shall be
informed immediately, and they will issue an informed decision in which they
confirm or reject this measure.
All the providers of telecommunications services, of access to a telecommunications network, or of services from the information society, as well as any individual
who in any way contributes to facilitate communications through the telephone or
through any other means of online, logical or virtual communication, are obliged to
give their specific assistance and cooperation to the judge, the Public Prosecutor’s
Office and the judicial police officers in charge of implementing the measures, in
order to facilitate the fulfilment of the authorizations to intercept the communications
[Art. 588c e)].
The maximum initial duration of the intervention is 3 months from the date of the
judicial authorization. This period may be renewed for consecutive 3-month periods
up to a maximum of 18 months, provided that this extension is duly justified [Art.
588c g) and h) CPA]. OL 2/2002 does not establish a maximum duration.
Finally, the CPA establishes, in Art. 588c i), the access of the different parties to
the recordings when the secrecy order is lifted and the validity period of the
intervention has expired.
In the case of OL 2/2002, the Secretary of State and Director of the National
Intelligence Centre must ask the competent judge of the Supreme Court to adopt this
measure, and the judge must issue the decision within a maximum of 72 h (24 h in
case of urgency).
388
F. M. Corvo López