SkyECC evidence
in Europe

Admissibility by country, pending cases and defence approaches

Whether SkyECC evidence can be used depends on the country. Courts in Austria, Switzerland and Slovenia have excluded it; courts in Italy and Spain have excluded it or acquitted where the defence had no remedy in France or no access to the raw data. Belgium, Germany and Montenegro admit it. The Advocate General's Opinion in CJEU case C-625/25 follows on 19 November 2026.

French investigators intercepted and decrypted SkyECC traffic between 2019 and 2021 within a joint investigation team with Belgium and the Netherlands, supported by Europol and Eurojust. The data of more than 170,000 users was then shared with prosecutors across Europe, mostly through European Investigation Orders. This page summarises how national courts have dealt with that material, which cases are still pending in Luxembourg and Strasbourg, and which defence arguments have succeeded. Each decision links to its entry in our Case Law Database.

SkyECC evidence country by country

Eleven countries, sorted alphabetically. For each country: the highest court that has ruled on SkyECC evidence so far, the leading decision and the result.

Austria

Highest court: Oberster Gerichtshof. Leading decision: OGH, 5 November 2024, 14 Os 107/24b; confirmed 13 November 2024, 11 Os 129/24s. Result: use barred. Section 55d(7) EU-JZG, which implements Art. 31 of the EIO Directive, is an unconditional ban once the interception could not have been ordered in Austria.

Belgium

Highest court: Hof van Cassatie. Leading decisions: Cass., 22 October 2024, P.24.0858.N; Cass., 14 October 2025, P.25.0623.N. Result: admitted. Access to source files (PCAP) only where the defence shows with concrete elements why it needs them.

France

Highest court: Cour de cassation. Leading decision: Cass. crim., 16 September 2025, no. 24-84.262. Result: persons prosecuted abroad have no remedy in France; the question was referred to the CJEU (C-625/25).

Germany

Highest court: Bundesgerichtshof. Leading decision: BGH, 9 January 2025, 1 StR 142/24. Result: admitted. The BGH applies its EncroChat standards to SkyECC; a breach of Art. 31 of the EIO Directive does not lead to exclusion. A constitutional complaint on defence access to the raw data is pending.

Italy

Highest court: Corte di cassazione. Leading decisions: Cass. Sez. IV, 15 July 2022, n. 32915/2022; Tribunale di Catanzaro, 9 October 2026, n. 320/2026. Result: the defence must be able to know how the data was obtained abroad. Catanzaro excluded all SkyECC chats because no remedy existed in France or Italy (not final).

Montenegro

Highest court: Vrhovni sud Crne Gore. Leading decision: Apelacioni sud Crne Gore, 11 March 2025, Kž-S 26/24, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2025. Result: admitted. The data was lawfully obtained through mutual legal assistance under French law, is documentary evidence, and the defence could contest it at trial.

Netherlands

Highest courts: Rechtbank (SkyECC), Hoge Raad (EncroChat). Leading decisions: Rechtbank Gelderland, 24 April 2024, 05/287190-23; Hoge Raad, 14 April 2026, 24/02527. Result: admitted, but uncorroborated chats do not meet the statutory minimum of evidence. The Hoge Raad holds that Art. 31 of the EIO Directive also protects users.

Serbia

Highest court: Apelacioni sud u Beogradu. Leading decision: 23 July 2025, Kž2-Po1 214/25. Result: confirmation of the indictment quashed; delivery through mutual legal assistance does not prove lawful acquisition.

Slovenia

Highest court: Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani. Leading decision: 2 December 2022, III K 24497/2021. Result: excluded; bulk surveillance violates the constitutional privacy of communications.

Spain

Highest court: Audiencia Provincial de València. Leading decision: 21 January 2026, Sentencia 24/2026. Result: 14 acquittals; without access to the raw data (PCAP/JSON) the chats cannot rebut the presumption of innocence. The Tribunal Supremo admits EncroChat data (STS 854/2025).

Switzerland

Highest court: Bundesgericht (no ruling on admissibility). Leading decisions: Obergericht Zürich, 15 August 2025, SB240422-O; Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt, 3 October 2025, SB.2023.48. Result: absolutely inadmissible; the decryption infringed Swiss sovereignty. The Federal Supreme Court declined to review the Zurich ruling (7B_1429/2025).

Two cases turn on other grounds: the Ghent Court of Appeal declared a SkyECC-based prosecution inadmissible because an undercover operation compromised the fair trial (analysis), and the Rotterdam District Court suspended the pre-trial detention of three SkyECC suspects (10/041005-22).

Pending cases in Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Lausanne

Four proceedings will shape SkyECC cases across Europe. Only the CJEU reference has a fixed date.

Court of Justice of the EU: C-625/25 (Prudniez)

Referred by the Cour de cassation on 16 September 2025. Question: does Art. 14(1) of Directive 2014/41/EU, read with Art. 47 of the Charter, require a remedy in the executing State for a person against whom evidence already held there is used in another Member State? Next step: Advocate General's Opinion at a public sitting on 19 November 2026. Our analysis.

General Court and Court of Justice: T-1180/23 and C-399/26 P (BW v Europol and Eurojust)

Question: lawfulness of Europol's and Eurojust's part in the joint investigation team that collected the data. The General Court held the action admissible on 25 February 2026; the appeal is pending before the Court of Justice as C-399/26 P, with no date set. Our analysis.

European Court of Human Rights: Isha v. Norway and Emmen v. Norway

Applications no. 7905/25 and 9417/25 concern convictions of 20 and 12 years based on SkyECC and EncroChat data from France. Questions under Art. 6 ECHR: was the material decisive, could its integrity be verified, could the defence challenge it, and were complete datasets or only extracts transferred? Communicated to Norway; no hearing date. Our analysis.

Swiss Federal Supreme Court: appeal against SB.2023.48

Admissibility of SkyECC data on the merits, after the Court declined to review the Zurich interim ruling. Pending; no date. Our analysis.

Defence approaches that have worked

Six lines of argument, each with the decision that accepted it. Which one carries weight depends on national procedure; the member for your country can assess that.

Show that no remedy existed in France. Record every unsuccessful request to the French authorities and ask the trial court to issue an EIO under Art. 32 of the Directive to preserve the French file. Legal basis: Art. 14(1) and (7) of Directive 2014/41/EU; Art. 47 of the Charter. Accepted by: Tribunale di Catanzaro, 320/2026 (all SkyECC chats excluded).
Ask for the raw data (PCAP/JSON), hash values and a record of every filtering step. Excel extracts without hash or signature are not verifiable. Legal basis: Art. 6 ECHR; ECtHR, Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye. Accepted by: Audiencia Provincial de València, 24/2026 (14 acquittals). Belgium requires concrete reasons for the request (Cass., P.24.0858.N).
Evidence on which the defence cannot effectively comment, and which is likely to have a preponderant influence on the findings of fact, must be disregarded. Legal basis: CJEU, C-670/22 (M.N.), 30 April 2024. Accepted by: Tribunale di Catanzaro, 320/2026; Tribunale di Imperia, N. 4/25 R.G.T. (EncroChat).
Argue that the interception of devices in your country needed that country's authorisation. Valencia rejected this ground, so combine it with others. Legal basis: Art. 31 of Directive 2014/41/EU; national sovereignty. Accepted by: OGH, 14 Os 107/24b; Obergericht Zürich, SB240422-O; Appellationsgericht Basel-Stadt, SB.2023.48.
Require the prosecution to show which court ordered which measure and how the data was obtained. Transmission through mutual legal assistance proves nothing about lawful acquisition. Legal basis: fair trial; national rules on foreign evidence. Accepted by: Cass. Sez. IV, 32915/2022; Court of Appeal Belgrade, Kž2-Po1 214/25.
Test whether anything other than the chats supports each charge. Legal basis: statutory minimum of evidence (Netherlands); free evaluation of evidence elsewhere. Accepted by: Rechtbank Gelderland, 05/287190-23 (acquittal).

Background: Digital evidence cannot stand above national law; Catanzaro: no effective remedy in France; Basel: SkyECC inadmissible; Austrian Supreme Court on foreign SkyECC evidence.

Frequently asked questions

Is SkyECC evidence admissible in court?

It depends on where you are tried. Austrian, Swiss and Slovenian courts have excluded it. Italian and Spanish courts have excluded it or acquitted where the defence had no remedy in France or no access to the raw data. Belgian, Dutch, German and Montenegrin courts admit it, although Dutch courts acquit where the chats are not corroborated.

When will the CJEU decide case C-625/25?

The Advocate General delivers the Opinion on 19 November 2026. The Opinion does not bind the Court. The judgment usually follows several months later; no date has been set.

Can the defence obtain the raw SkyECC data?

Courts differ. The Valencia Provincial Court held that without the raw data (PCAP/JSON) the chats could not rebut the presumption of innocence. The Belgian Court of Cassation grants access only where the defence shows concretely why it needs the data. Make the request early, in writing, and name what you need: raw files, hash values and the record of each filtering step.

I am prosecuted in one country on SkyECC data collected in France. Where can I challenge how it was gathered?

Under C-670/22 the trial court in your country generally may not review how France gathered evidence it already held. France gives no remedy to people who were not parties to the French proceedings, which is why the Cour de cassation referred the question to the CJEU in C-625/25. Until the CJEU rules, the Tribunale di Catanzaro has shown that the absence of any remedy can itself lead to exclusion.

Does the CJEU's EncroChat judgment (C-670/22) apply to SkyECC?

Courts have applied it to SkyECC evidence: the Austrian Supreme Court (14 Os 107/24b), the Tribunale di Catanzaro (320/2026) and the Valencia Provincial Court (24/2026) all rely on it.

Who handles SkyECC cases in my country?

Each member of the Joint Defense Team (JDT) takes on cases in their own jurisdiction. The list below names the member for each country.

JDT members by country

Christian Lödden, Justus Reisinger and Guillaume Martine brought the French proceedings that led to the reference in C-625/25.

Last updated: 13 November 2026, Christian Lödden. This page is reviewed every quarter and after each judgment listed above.

SkyECC evidence in Europe