Privacy Int'l v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs and La Quadrature du Net v. Premier ministre (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-57
Author(s):  
Jack Maxwell ◽  
Joe Tomlinson

In October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as a Grand Chamber, handed down its preliminary rulings in Privacy International v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Privacy International) and in the joined cases of La Quadrature du Net v. Premier ministre and Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone v. Conseil des ministers (La Quadrature du Net). In Privacy International, the CJEU held that member states are precluded from enacting laws enabling bulk transmission of communications data from providers to the state. In La Quadrature du Net, it laid down requirements for various types of data processing, including bulk and targeted retention and automated analysis, and held for the first time that bulk retention of communications data could be justified on national security grounds. The judgments represent a significant development of the CJEU's jurisprudence on communications data processing and state surveillance, as the European Union (EU) continues to move towards a new digital privacy law.

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-472
Author(s):  
Björn Arp

On March 6, 2018, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its judgment in Slowakische Republic (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea B.V. (Achmea decision) in response to the German Federal Court of Justice's (Bundesgerichtshof) request for a preliminary ruling. Deciding for the first time on the compatibility of the arbitration provision in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with European Union (EU) law, the Court concluded that the investor-state arbitration clause in the Dutch-Slovak BIT was incompatible with EU law because it violated the principle of autonomy. The Court will soon respond to Belgium's request for an Opinion on the Canada-EU free trade agreement (FTA), where it will rule on the compatibility of extra-EU investment agreements with EU law.


Author(s):  
Sébastien Brisard ◽  
Guglielmo Cantillo ◽  
Ramona Grimberger ◽  
Victoria Hanley-Emilsson ◽  
Rebeka Hevesi ◽  
...  

Council of the European Union v. European Commission, Case C-409/13, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 14 April 2015European Commission v. Vanbreda Risk & Benefits, Case C‑35/15 P(R), Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 23 April 2015Geoffrey Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang...


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4-1) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Uğur Burç Yıldız İ ◽  
Anıl Çamyamaç

Abstract Having previously remained impartial on the Gibraltar question between Spain and Britain since both were member states, the European Union suddenly changed its position after the Brexit referendum in favor of the Spanish government at the expense of breaching international law. In doing so, the European Union, for the first time, created a foreign policy on the long-standing Gibraltar question. This article explores the reasons behind the creation of this foreign policy in support of Spain. The European Union feared that the idea of Euroscepticism may escalate among remaining member states after the Brexit referendum because of wide-spread claims that it would dissolve in the near future, fuelled by farright political parties. The European Union therefore created a foreign policy regarding Gibraltar in Spain’s favor in order to promote a “sense of community” for thwarting a further rise in Euroscepticism. While making its analysis, the article applies the assumption of social constructivism that ideas shape interests, which then determine the foreign policy choices of actors.


Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti

Since long before the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), the two highest courts in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have sought to develop their respective jurisprudence in such a way as to ensure a strong protection of individual rights, whilst avoiding clashes between the decisions taken in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. An important statement in this regard is provided by the Bosphorus judgment, in which the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognised the existence of a presumption of equivalent protection of fundamental rights under EU law. The presumption is rebuttable, but expresses the trustful attitude (and a certain degree of deference) of Strasbourg towards the ability of EU law (and of the CJEU) to protect Convention rights.


Author(s):  
Martin Conway

This concluding chapter describes how the Europe of the 1990s was for the first time in its history both united and democratic. But the sudden turning point of 1989 lacked something of the global significance of the other European post-war moments of the twentieth century in 1918 and 1945. Europe no longer stood at the centre of its own history, as demonstrated by the ineffective response of the European Union to the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and by the divisions that emerged among European states during the American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In economic terms, too, the ascendancy of a new global capitalism obliged Europe to accept the economic weather generated by more distant or universal forces. In addition, however, Europe had lost confidence in the democratic model that it had developed and, to a large degree, patented. The more fractured and fluid politics that had emerged in Europe by the end of the twentieth century might be more appropriately described as post-democracy: a politics still conducted through the language and institutional structures of democracy, but which lacked much of the former substance of democratic politics.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could rely on the prerogative power to issue a notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to secede from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, or whether parliamentary authorization was required. There is also a brief discussion of the Sewel Convention. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Author(s):  
Noreen O'Meara

Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Wightman and others (Case C-621/18), EU:C:2018:999, 10 December 2018. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O'Meara.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document