德國聯邦最高法院刑事裁判BGHSt 67, 29──EncroChat資料之證據能力

Criminal Judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court BGHSt 67, 29−Evidence Ability of EncroChat Data

2017年開始，法國在多起販毒現場，發現EncroChat的特殊加密通訊手機。EncroChat用戶足跡遍及歐洲，因技術門檻高，法國警方難以辨識用戶身分和擷取加密通訊內容。在歐盟司法合作組織（Eurojust）主導下，法國、荷蘭以及歐盟刑警組織（Europol）以行動代號EMMA共同偵查。2020年，法國檢方取得法官核准之木馬偵查令狀，秘密使用國防機密等級的木馬程式。這波法國跨國木馬偵查成果非凡，被入侵的EncroChat手機高達32,477支，木馬波及121個國家。法國將EncroChat資料，透過歐盟刑警組織，提供給其他歐盟國。這顯然是歐洲追訴機關成功的木馬戰爭。然而，功成名就的背後，正觸動人權保障與科技偵查的敏感神經，EncroChat案件面臨不少法律挑戰。在證據使用方面，法國取得的EncroChat資料後來在歐洲國家之法院作為證據時，也有重重法律爭議。代表德國聯邦最高法院立場的是該院2022年裁判：BGHSt 67, 29。對於EncroChat資料之證據能力爭議，BGHSt 67, 29以司法互助之證據使用禁止為主軸，從5個面向――國際法原則、公共秩序、司法互助規定、德國憲法或刑事訴訟法規定――探討可能證據使用禁止的理由，並回應文獻不同意見，進而肯認EncroChat資料之證據能力。

Since 2017, special encrypted mobile phones of EncroChat have been found at drug trafficking scenes in France, where EncroChat users are located all over Europe and the high technical threshold makes it difficult for the French police to identify users and capture encrypted communications. The investigation was led by Eurojust and was conducted jointly by France, the Netherlands and Europol under the operational code EMMA. In 2020, the French prosecutors obtained a judge warrant for the investigation of the Trojan horse, which was secretly used. The results of the French multinational Trojan investigation were extraordinary, with 32,477 compromised EncroChat phones and a Trojan horse that reached 121 countries. The EncroChat data was provided by France to other EU countries through Europol. This was clearly a successful Trojan war for European prosecutors. However, behind this success, the case of EncroChat is facing a number of legal challenges, as human rights protection and technological investigation are at stake. In terms of the use of evidence, the EncroChat data obtained in France was later used as evidence in the courts of European countries, and there were numerous legal disputes. BGHSt 67, 29, which represents the position of the German Federal Supreme Court, focuses on the prohibition of the use of evidence for mutual legal assistance in five areas–principles of international law, public order, the rules of mutual legal assistance BGHSt 67, 29 examines the reasons for the possible evidentiary prohibition–principles of international law, public order, mutual legal assistance provisions, german constitutional or german code of criminal procedure–and responds to the different opinions in the literature in order to affirm the evidentiary ability of EncroChat data.