全球信息化时代背景下，电子证据在跨境刑事调查中的作用愈加凸显。快速且合法地调取电子证据无疑是解决电子证据易变性、跨国性特质的重要出路。从国家之间的传统司法协助，到如今主管部门可以直接与服务提供商进行合作，新的机制使得电子证据跨境调取实现了流程简化和效率提升。作为欧盟涉及跨境电子证据调取的最新规定以及欧盟参加的国际公约，欧盟《欧盟提交令和保全令条例》《布达佩斯公约》及其《第二附加议定书》均针对该跨境电子证据调取机制进行了详细的规定，而《欧盟提交令和保全令条例》的提交令和保全令以及第二附加议定书的调取请求对调取的效率促进机制、调取请求可以适用的案件范围、可以直接合作的服务提供商的范围等问题的规定又有所差异，核心规定仍存在对数据主体基本权利保障不足、对服务提供商风险救济不足、对执行国数据主权的尊重不足在内的一系列问题。立法及谈判的过程中，各利益攸关方也针对争议问题提出了许多建议。欧盟需要进一步完善服务提供商的抗辩机制、执行国的通知及反对机制，以及统一并确定跨境电子证据调取的范围限制。提升跨境电子证据调取效率的同时，仍要注重效率与人权、数据主权的平衡。

In the context of the global information age, the role of electronic evidence incross-border criminal investigations has become increasingly prominent. Quick andlegal retrieval of electronic evidence is undoubtedly an important way to solve thevolatile and transnational nature of electronic evidence. From traditional judicialassistance between countries to the fact that competent authorities can now cooperatedirectly with service providers, the new mechanism simplifies the process and improvesefficiency in cross-border retrieval of electronic evidence. As the latest EU regulationsinvolving cross-border electronic evidence retrieval and international conventions towhich the EU is a party, the EU's Electronic Evidence Package, the BudapestConvention and its Second Additional Protocol all provide detailed information on thecross-border electronic evidence retrieval mechanism. Stipulations, and the submissionorder and preservation order of the “Electronic Evidence Package” and the retrievalrequest of Additional Protocol II promote the efficiency of retrieval, the scope of casesto which retrieval requests can be applied, and the scope of service providers that candirectly cooperate. There are differences in the regulations on other issues. The coreregulations still have a series of problems, including insufficient protection of the basicrights of data subjects, insufficient risk relief for service providers, and insufficientrespect for the data sovereignty of the executing country. During the legislative andnegotiation process, various stakeholders also put forward many suggestions oncontroversial issues. The EU needs to further improve the defense mechanism of serviceproviders, the notification and objection mechanism of enforcement countries, andunify and determine the scope limits of cross-border electronic evidence retrieval.While improving the efficiency of cross-border electronic evidence retrieval, we muststill pay attention to the balance between efficiency, human rights, and data sovereignty.