Cross-border interception of telecommunications in relation to sovereignty and fundamental rights and freedoms:

The case of Albania

Abstract

Evidence collection in criminal procedure requires a careful balance between effective investigative powers and the protection of fundamental rights. While traditional mechanisms of international cooperation are grounded in territorial jurisdiction and formal procedural safeguards, cross-border interception of communications challenges these models, particularly in the context of electronic evidence. Due to efficiency concerns with lengthy procedures in traditional mechanisms, newer cooperation instruments reconfigure jurisdictional and procedural powers. This study examines how cross-border evidence-gathering mechanisms implicate the principle of state sovereignty and fundamental rights, particularly where procedural safeguards differ across legal systems. It analyses the interaction between the Council of Europe framework for mutual legal assistance, centered on letters rogatory, and European Union instruments governing interception and electronic evidence. Employing normative analysis on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, this study argues that newly established cross-border evidence-gathering mechanisms entail asymmetric implications for state sovereignty and fundamental rights, as legal systems embed different levels of procedural safeguards and judicial oversight. This structural imbalance is exemplified by the regulatory framework and judicial practice of Albania, serving as a case study of how state sovereignty and fundamental rights are balanced in cross-border interception practices.