scholarly journals A leading role for the EU in drafting criminal law powers? Use of the Council of Europe for policy laundering

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-106
Author(s):  
Paul De Hert ◽  
Angela Aguinaldo
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Production Orders ◽  
The Eu

In light of the ongoing story on the regulatory steps towards electronic evidence and transnational production orders, civil rights organizations have expressed both alarm and astonishment on the regulatory initiatives in the Council of Europe regarding transnational production orders. Member states of the European Union (EU) engage actively in soft law entrepreneurship by allowing themselves to obtain directly from service providers subscriber and other communications content. This has not only been done domestically through national laws but likewise on a multilateral level as EU member states are now seen drawn towards the Council of Europe. Within said Council of Europe, member states are now enabled to stretch the extraterritorial powers exercised by their law enforcement authorities in obtaining electronic evidence through a controversial Guidance Note and soon, a Second Additional Protocol. Interestingly, throughout these developments, the EU remained passive but as of late, has come up with proposals for the European Production and Preservation Orders, among others. The mixture of alarm and astonishment among civil liberties representatives about the decision making procedures at the level of the Council of Europe can be best understood in a broader regulatory context of policy enterpreneurship, rent-seeking behaviour and, overall, rational choice institutionalism. Comparing the Council of Europe with the EU, the structure of the former makes it the more attractive venue for policy actors such as law enforcement authorities to maximize their benefits at the least amount of costs. Being competitors in policymaking vis-à-vis cooperation in criminal matters, the EU can however lose its sociopolitical ascendancy over time as an institutional venue to discuss cooperation matters. In light of this, one should not forget that two Europes coexist. These coexisting realities are now being used to the advantage of laundering policies, testing which forum would maximize benefits the most. These developments should caution us that there might be a systemic failure in ensuring safeguards in criminal investigations are always in place.

scholarly journals Contradictions in Frontex Operations: the Push-back

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Gábor Kemény ◽  
Michal Vít
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Influencing Factors ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Organisational Structure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The aim of the paper is to introduce the legal misfits between the standards of human rights as stated by the European Union and the Council of Europe and practical day to day experience related to EU member states. For this purpose, the article focuses on political and legal assessment of the so-called pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish external border and introduces the influencing factors, such as the various interpretation of the legislation, differences in the organisational structure and values. Authors concluded that these factors are endangering the fulfilment of the fundamental rights and the efficiency of the border protection thus the security of the EU and its member states.

Interoperability

2011 ◽  
pp. 180-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Breitenstrom ◽  
Klaus-Peter Eckert ◽  
Jens Fromm
Keyword(s):  
General Framework ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Access Management ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Federal States ◽  
Enterprise Soa ◽  
Functional Components ◽  
The Eu

The EU Services Directive (EU-SD), which was passed in December 2006, should simplify access to the services market in all Member States of the European Union and eliminate bureaucratic barriers for Service Providers. This chapter presents an overview of the major functional components and processes that are necessary to implement and run the EU-SD between all stakeholders such as Service Providers, newly introduced Points of Single Contact and Responsible Public Authorities, based on a general framework for federated enterprise SOA. Especially in Germany, consisting of federated and autonomous federal states, but equally between different Member States, interoperability between different components is one of the major challenges of the EU-SD. This chapter elaborates on the interoperability aspect of data/document exchange between the stakeholders, using a secure “call by reference” concept that is implemented by an Electronic Safe, together with appropriate concepts for identity and access management.

The European Commission’s e-Evidence Proposal – Critical Remarks and Proposals for Changes

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-353
Author(s):  
Maciej Rogalski
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Production Orders ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
European Production ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In response to problems that exist in practice pertaining to how law enforcement authorities in European Union Member States can obtain electronic evidence concerning the commission of a crime, on 17 April 2018 a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (COM(2018) 225 final, 2018/0108 (cod)) was published. The proposal contains a series of new solutions aimed at speeding up and facilitating cooperation within the EU on obtaining electronic evidence in criminal matters. It is worth examining how the specific solutions accepted and the way they have been formulated may affect the fundamental rights of participants in criminal proceedings, particularly when that impact may be adverse. From this perspective, a detailed analysis is made of what entities will be authorised to issue European Production Orders, in relation to what kinds of electronic evidence, and under what conditions.

Resolution 2300 (Council of Eur. Parl. Assembly)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-494
Author(s):  
David Lewis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Eu

This Resolution was adopted in October 2019 following a report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It has to be seen in the context of previous Council of Europe activity on this topic as well as the European Union (EU) Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. The content of the EU Directive was agreed earlier in 2019 and EU Member States are obliged to transpose it into national legislation by December 2021.

scholarly journals EU Law and Mass Internet Metadata Surveillance in the Post-Snowden Era

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nora Ni Loideain
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Communication Service ◽  
The Eu

Legal frameworks exist within democracies to prevent the misuse and abuse of personal data that law enforcement authorities obtain from private communication service providers. The fundamental rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data underpin this framework within the European Union. Accordingly, the protection of the principles and safeguards required by these rights is key to ensuring that the oversight of State surveillance powers is robust and transparent. Furthermore, without the robust scrutiny of independent judicial review, the principles and safeguards guaranteed by these rights may become more illusory than real. Following the Edward Snowden revelations, major concerns have been raised worldwide regarding the legality, necessity and proportionality standards governing these laws. In 2014, the highest court in the EU struck down the legal framework that imposed a mandatory duty on communication service providers to undertake the mass retention of metadata for secret intelligence and law enforcement authorities across the EU. This article considers the influence of the Snowden revelations on this landmark judgment. Subsequently, the analysis explores the significance of this ruling for the future reform of EU law governing metadata surveillance and its contribution to the worldwide debate on indiscriminate and covert monitoring in the post-Snowden era.

scholarly journals Law Enforcement Cooperation of the Member States of the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 338-342
Author(s):  
Natalia Mushak ◽  
Anastasiia Zaporozhets
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
External Action ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Internal Security ◽  
Main Instrument ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of law enforcement cooperation of the European Union Member States. The main bodiesresponsible for cooperation in the EU have been identified.It has been determined that the main instrument of police cooperation is the European Police Office, which is a central elementof the wider European internal security architecture. CEPOL has been proven to be the agency that develops, implements and coordinatestraining for law enforcement officers. The EU Analytical Intelligence Centre (EU INTCEN) is not, strictly speaking, a policecooperation body, as it is the Directorate for European External Action Service (EEAS) and deals only with strategic analysis. On theStanding Committee to ensure the development and strengthening of operational cooperation on internal security matters within theUnion (COSI), it promotes coordination among the competent authorities of the member states.

scholarly journals National and Collective Practices for the COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Europe

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (12) ◽  
pp. 50-60
Author(s):  
M. Vedernikov
Keyword(s):  
Early Stage ◽  
Stress Test ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
History Of ◽  
National Programs ◽  
The Eu

The article deals with the national and collective pandemic responses at the early stage of the COVID‑19 spread in Europe. It is noted that the European Union was not ready for such a cataclysm, despite the history of the spread of serious infectious diseases and the presence of special services and road maps. The virus that began to circulate in Asia, was not initially perceived by the EU representatives as a real threat. Moreover, its leadership ignored the voices of some member states of the Union, focusing on solving other problems. In turn, the countries left without Brussels’ attention began to counteract the new Coronavirus independently, using the anti-crisis tools that were prescribed in the existing pandemic plans. The existence of such national programs determined the specificity of the measures taken in the very first days. The author identifies three models of the EU member states’ behavior. The first one was common for the states of the so-called “political core of the EU” which refused to adopt strict lockdown measures due to their unwillingness to weaken democracy, violate human rights and limit civil liberties. The second group, comprised mainly of the EU‑11 countries, imposed severe measures. The author sees the rationale for this step in the fact that local authorities doubted the capabilities of national health systems in passing a pandemic stress test. The third group includes states that have chosen the way of achieving herd immunity – the most controversial option of resistance to viral infection, that has not proven its effectiveness. The article demonstrates that the period of growing national egoism was followed by a stage of decisive measures by the central authorities of the EU. They were able to develop a suitable package of measures that took into consideration the interests of the most affected countries of the Union. The consolidation of the EU after a temporary weakening became possible due to the “reset” of the Franco-German tandem.

Joining Forces or Reinventing the Wheel? The EU and the Protection of National Minorities

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-305
Author(s):  
Gulara Guliyeva
Keyword(s):  
Coherent System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Minority Protection ◽  
National Minorities ◽  
Accession Process ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article explores a model of minority protection that the European Union (EU) could adopt. The discussion first assesses the possibility for the EU to join forces with the Council of Europe through internalising, or even acceding to, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM). This would provide numerous benefits, such as provision of consistent benchmarks of minority protection when applied to candidate States in the accession process to the EU, availability of mechanisms to resolve remaining issues relating to minorities within the EU post-accession and elimination of double standards between 'new' and 'old' Member States. Yet these developments are politically sensitive and prone to create procedural difficulties. The alternative option of an EU regime of minority protection is discussed next, focusing on the impact EU law may have on minority rights in Member States. Based on this analysis, the article concludes that an attempt by the EU to develop a coherent system of minority protection may result in reinventing the wheel. Therefore, it is suggested that the EU may be better placed to encourage candidate countries and Member States' implementation of the FCNM.

scholarly journals A Council of Europe perspective on the European Union: Crucial and complex cooperation

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Polakiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Financial Arrangements ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the institutional role of the EU in the Council of Europe, with particular emphasis on EU participation in Council of Europe treaties and EU accession to the ECHR. While recognising the joint effort to achieve greater unity in the region of Europe through respect for the shared core values of pluralist democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the concerns raised by non-Member States of the EU about the impact of EU law and policies on the Council of Europe’s standards are examined. It is argued that the Council of Europe and the EU have a shared responsibility for upholding the effectiveness of their respective frameworks and ensuring that any overlapping competences do not create conflict. This is particularly evident when it comes to the European system for the protection of fundamental rights, which is characterised by overlapping standards and procedures. The existing cooperation between the Council of Europe and the EU should be strengthened through a more rational, rules-based approach. In particular, it is suggested that the two systems should jointly agree on a series of basic principles on the treaty-making process, providing for horizontal application by the introduction of specific rules on, for example, voting and speaking rights of the EU, the sharing of reporting obligations between the EU and its Member States under Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, and financial arrangements. The EU’s participation and financial contribution to monitoring follow-up should always be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specificities of each mechanism.

scholarly journals Justice and Home Affairs in the European Union

Social Work ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Trauner ◽  
Ariadna Ripoll Servent
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
The Eu

Justice and home affairs (JHA) has grown into a relevant and complex field of research. It encompasses European Union (EU) policies of high political salience including asylum, migration, border control, counterterrorism, and police cooperation, as well as criminal and civil law. The processes of European integration and “communitarization” have drawn the attention of the academic community. In the 1990s, the EU’s cooperation on JHA expanded when it embarked on the objective of creating an Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ). It implied that the member states lifted competences that touch upon core features of the state—notably, the capacity to control the territory and to exert the use of legitimate force—to the EU level. From the outset, this was too intrusive for some member states such as the United Kingdom, which gained far-reaching “opt-out” rights. As a matter of fact, JHA encompasses a range of highly sensitive policies and has become increasingly politicized since the 2000s. Questions of security, civil liberties, and belonging are now at the forefront of the political and media agenda. There is an intense struggle over how to define identities in an increasingly diverse European society and how to distinguish “oneself” from an external “other.” Having a clear stance on these questions can determine whether governments win or lose elections. The EU’s cooperation and role in JHA are therefore interlinked with the debate over the meaning of nationhood in the interconnected world of the early 21st century. To what extent can and should European states be free to decide on issues such as immigration? JHA has also become a defining factor in the EU’s relations with the rest of the world. It is a challenge for the EU to define—and implement—immigration regimes for third-country nationals as well as to cooperate with (at times authoritarian) third countries on counterterrorism and other JHA issues. This contribution offers a summary of the main literature in the JHA field. It is important to note that there are specialized debates and discussions in some subfields of JHA (for instance, migration studies). We only touch upon these policy debates and focus on studies looking at EU JHA more generally. Our approach is to offer a description of classic literature with newer JHA research. We start by looking at books discussing the development of JHA in the EU. We then outline the main debates in JHA research (e.g., security versus liberty), followed by an analysis of the main dynamics of EU decision-making. We also reflect upon different debates in the literature on the external dimension of EU JHA policies. The contribution ends with a discussion on data sources and networking opportunities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document