scholarly journals The recent jurisprudence of the CJEU on personal data retention: implications for criminal investigation in Portugal

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-56
Author(s):  
Alessandra Silveira ◽  
Pedro Miguel Freitas

It can be concluded from the Tele2 judgment of 2016 that i) the declaration of invalidity of the provisions contained in a directive inevitably affects the legal act of transposition into the legal order of the Member States, and ii) a Member State cannot resort to the Directive 2002/58 to impose a generalised and undifferentiated obligation to conserve traffic and location data following the declaration of invalidity of Directive 2006/24. It is, therefore, urgent to draw conclusions from this recent ruling by the CJEU, which is all the more relevant because, in Member States where the transposed legislation continued to apply following the declaration of invalidity of Directive 2006/24 – as was the case in Portugal – many criminal convictions were based on the access to potentially illegitimate data. The authors seek to demonstrate what is happening in Portugal in this area and call for compliance with the jurisprudence of the CJEU – not only because the effectiveness of the European Union law is at stake, but also (and above all), the legal equality between European citizens.

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (34) ◽  
pp. 361-378
Author(s):  
Vitalii Gutnyk ◽  
Ivan Bratsuk ◽  
Stepan Burak ◽  
Antonina Zubareva

The objective of this article is to analyze the concept of constitutional pluralism as a methodological basis for the construction of the legal system of the European Union. In particular, attention is paid to investigating the particularities of the interaction and operation of the different constitutional legal systems within the legal sphere of the European Union, studying the constitutional collisions derived from the interaction of European Union law and the law national of the Member States. Dialectical, comparative legal, historical, systemic-structural and formal dogmatic methods were used in the research. The article concluded that the national constitutional courts of the Member States of the European Union can give priority to their constitutional rules only if those rules are clear and reflect substantial constitutional obligations. However, in any case, in order to maintain the coherence of the legislation of the European Union and the national legislation of the Member States, it is necessary to amend the national Constitutions of the Member States of the European Union.


Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

The European Union was born as an international organization. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, although the European Court of Justice was eager to emphasize that the Union constitutes “a new legal order” of international law. With time, this new legal order has indeed evolved into a true “federation of States.” Yet how would the foreign affairs powers of this new supranational entity be divided? Would the European Union gradually replace the member states, or would it preserve their distinct and diverse foreign affairs voices? In the past sixty years, the Union has indeed significantly sharpened its foreign affairs powers. While still based on the idea that it has no plenary power, the Union’s external competences have expanded dramatically, and today it is hard to identify a nucleus of exclusive foreign affairs powers reserved for the member states. And in contrast to a classic international law perspective, the Union’s member states only enjoy limited treaty-making powers under European law. Their foreign affairs powers are limited by the exclusive powers of the Union, and they may be preempted through European legislation. There are, however, moments when both the Union and its states enjoy overlapping foreign affairs powers. For these situations, the Union legal order has devised a number of cooperative mechanisms to safeguard a degree of “unity” in the external actions of the Union. Mixed agreements constitute an international mechanism that brings the Union and the member states to the same negotiating table. The second constitutional device is internal to the Union legal order: the duty of cooperation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-91
Author(s):  
Alexandre Veronese ◽  
Alessandra Silveira ◽  
Amanda Nunes Lopes Espiñeira Lemos

The article discusses the ethical and technical consequences of Artificial intelligence (hereinafter, A.I) applications and their usage of the European Union data protection legal framework to enable citizens to defend themselves against them. This goal is under the larger European Union Digital Single Market policy, which has concerns about how this subject correlates with personal data protection. The article has four sections. The first one introduces the main issue by describing the importance of AI applications in the contemporary world scenario. The second one describes some fundamental concepts about AI. The third section has an analysis of the ongoing policies for AI in the European Union and the Council of Europe proposal about ethics applicable to AI in the judicial systems. The fourth section is the conclusion, which debates the current legal mechanisms for citizens protection against fully automated decisions, based on European Union Law and in particular the General Data Protection Regulation. The conclusion will be that European Union Law is still under construction when it comes to providing effective protection to its citizens against automated inferences that are unfair or unreasonable.


De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Debora Valkova-Terzieva ◽  

The subject of this research is a specific prerequisite for the termination of criminal proceedings in public criminal cases, regulated in Article 24, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. This analysis was necessitated by the fact that the European Union had introduced certain obligations for the Member States.


2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 821-834
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Gerard-René de Groot ◽  
Ngo Chun Luk

The history of the European Union has been fraught with constant friction between the sovereignty of the Member States and the supranational powers of the Union, with the Union gaining terrain in fields of law traditionally belonging to the Member States. Despite this tension, certain legal fields are steadfastly asserted as belonging to the Member States. Notably, Member States regulate the grounds of the acquisition and loss of nationality. The Treaty of Lisbon highlights that the nationality of Member States is scarcely governed by European Union law, if at all. The sole provision governing the relationship between Member State nationality and Union law, i.e., Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stresses the primacy of Member State nationality.Reality, however, is often not as simple as such a cursory reading implies. European Union citizenship, once a mere complementary facet of the national citizenships, has transformed into an institution in its own right, forming a symbiotic relationship between the Member State nationality and the European Union.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-177
Author(s):  
Sahra Arif

The Achmea judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) found that arbitration clauses in bilateral investment treaties (BITS) between Member States of the European Union are incompatible with European Union law. Following this, Member States attempted to invoke this judgment in relation to similar intra-EU arbitrations under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Tribunals established under the ECT have however generally rejected the applicability of the Achmea judgement. While the EU Commission and the majority of Member States concluded that this judgment also precludes intra-EU ect arbitrations, a few Member States held the opposite view. The future of intra-EU ECT arbitrations therefore seems fragile in the least. A closer analysis of the decisions of ECT Tribunals, and the relationship between obligations under European Union law and international law however argues that the future of such intra-EU ECT arbitrations is not as fragile as it may seem.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bridgette K. McLellan

<p>European Union citizenship was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Intended to fall within the exclusive prerogative of the Member States, it soon became clear that the autonomy of Member States to determine matters relating to nationality would be restricted by the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice. As such, the European Court of Justice transformed the law on citizenship in the 2010 case of Rottmann where measures affecting or depriving the rights conferred and protected by the European Union were held to fall within the scope ratione materiae of European Union law. While Rottmann affirmed the law as to the deprivation of European Union citizenship, it left unanswered the question whether the acquisition of nationality also falls within the scope of European Union law. This paper aims to identify and analyse the law arising post-Rottmann to determine whether the acquisition of nationality could fall within the scope of European Union law. It shall then analyse whether fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of proportionality, could be applied in order to regulate the conditions imposed by Member States in relation to the acquisition of nationality.</p>


Author(s):  
N. Mushak

The article investigates the concept of "safe third country" in the law of the European Union. The article analyzes a number of international legal instruments that define the content of the concept of "safe third country". The research provides the definition of "safe third country". In particular, the safe third country should be determined as the country whose territory a person is crossing through the territory of the state where such person is seeking for the asylum, with the ability of that person to apply for asylum and use proper and relevant procedures. In fact, the concept of "safe third country" is applied by the EU Member States only when it is safe to guarantee that foreigners will be able to use the fair asylum procedures on the territory through they passed, and such persons shall be provided the effective protection of their rights. The article also determines the cases of the concept application by the EU Member States. In particular, the competent authorities of the EU Member States are confident that the third country the following aspects should be guaranted: the life and liberty of the applicant are not at risk due to race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social or political group; the principle of prohibition of expulsion under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951 shall be observed; the principle of prohibition of expulsion in case of violation of the right to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by international law is been respected; there is the possibility to apply for a refugee status and to receive protection under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951.


2017 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 227-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Statkiewicz

THE BOOK AS AN OBJECT OF CULTURAL VALUE IN THE EUROPEAN UNIONBooks play a significant role in the preservation of cultural diversity within the European Union. Because of the binary character of the book as a cultural artifact, as well as an object of commerce, books are encompassed by special mechanisms of support and protection within the borders of the European Union. Their cultural value may also justify the unique treatment of books in the application of some of the provisions of the Treaties, e.g. in the areas of taxation, copyrights and competition law. Due to the EU legislation in the fields of VAT tax as well as copyrights, the Member States are able to highlight the valuable contribution of books concerning preservation, dissemination and development of national cultures. However, in the era of digital revolution, some of presented provisions are insufficient. Reduced rate of VAT tax cannot be applied to e-books, which were recognized by the Court of Justice of the European Union as electronically supplied services. Moreover, there is still lack of announced EU provisions on fixed book price. As a result, the Member States sharing the same language, are not able to establish joint fixed book price without breaking the European Union law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document