As the interception of communications infringe the close part of the privacy and the degree of the infringement is very serious, the law of protecting the secrecy of communications limits the group of crimes which can be the cause of the interception. As the result, the purpose of the limitation could not be achieved if the materials of evidence would not be restricted to use in investigation and prosecution only for the crimes within the limited group. We could admit the provision §12(1) of the law of protecting the secrecy of communications reasonable, which restrict the scope of the use of the evidence obtained by the interception of the communications. But the indentification materials of electronic communications includes only the names, the telephone numbers of the parties of the communication, the times fo the communication. It does not include the contents of the communications. The degree of the infringement could be said relatively minor and the law does not limit the scope of the crime which could be the cause of the request for the identification materials. Therefore, there would be no reason to limit the scope of the use of the evidence obtained by the request issued by the court. Nevertheless, the provision §13-5 of the law of protecting the secrecy of communications provides that the provision §12(1) which restrict the use of the evidence obtained by the interception apply correspondingly to the indentification materials of electronic communications. From the point of view of legislation, the provision §13-5 could be said inappropriate and should be eliminated in the future.