scholarly journals National Security Concerns as an Exception to EU Standards on Data Protection

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-91
Author(s):  
Araceli Turmo
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Security ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Conflicting Interests ◽  
Security Concerns ◽  
The Eu

Discussions on the appropriate fundamental rights standards in the EU and the need to take into account conflicting interests are increasingly being reframed as debates on the conflict between the primacy of EU law and the constitutional standards of the Member States. One example of this reframing is the French administrative supreme court’s decision following the ECJ judgment in La Quadrature du Net. The Conseil ruled that the EU standards set in that judgment must be reviewed, at the national level, with regard to a national understanding of security concerns and the requirements of the fight against terrorism. Thus, constitutional requirements related to public security may be relied upon to argue for a lower standard of protection of personal data than those which the ECJ requires. As this decision shows, the ability of corporations and Governments to rely on litigation before national courts to challenge the standard of protection set at the EU level creates a significant risk, not only for the uniformity of EU law, but also for the protection of the rights of individuals. 

scholarly journals Judicial Review of Administrative Action at National Level under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and General Principles of EU Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-49
Author(s):  
Mihaela Vrabie
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This article aims to determine when the national authorities have the obligation to comply with EU fundamental rights, in the framework of administrative procedures carried out in the EU Member States. It also aims to determine the legal remedies available at national level in the context of judicial review in case of violation, by the national authorities, of EU fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU or as general principles of EU law. To this end, this study explains the impact of the legally binding EU Charter on public administration of the Member States and the field of application of the EU Charter at national level. The article also deals with the distinction between EU fundamental rights as primary EU law guaranteed by the EU Charter and EU fundamental rights as general principles of EU law. With reference to the judicial remedies available to national courts, the study outlines the effects of EU law (primacy of EU law, direct effect, direct application) in relation to the EU fundamental rights and the measures that can be adopted by the national courts when the action of the national administrative authorities is not compatible with EU fundamental rights. Finally, the article presents the most important findings concerning judicial protection of EU fundamental rights at the national level, especially from the perspective of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial stipulated by Article 47 of the EU Charter.  

Application of the EU CFR by National Courts in Purely Domestic Cases

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Jakab
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Local Courts ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
The Eu

This chapter argues that the most promising way to conceptualize the values of European constitutionalism in a judicially enforceable manner is through a creative reinterpretation of Article 51(1) EU CFR. It asserts that in order to create a fully fledged value community which benefits all its citizens equally, the CFR should become fully applicable in every case in its own right—even in purely domestic cases in domestic courts and even in the absence of a systemic failure of fundamental rights protection at the domestic level. This would mean that judicial review would be introduced across Europe via the supremacy of EU law. This judicial review would be decentralized in the sense that local courts could exercise it, but its unified application would be ensured by the preliminary procedure. The EU could thus become a ‘community of fundamental rights’ with nobody left behind.

scholarly journals La tutela judicial de los derechos fundamentales en el ámbito de aplicación nacional del derecho de la Unión Europea : recientes acotaciones del Tribunal de Justicia y del Tribunal ConstitucionalEspañol = The judicial protection of fundamental rights in the sphere of the national application of EU law : recent remarks by the Court of Justice and by the Spanish Constitutional Court

2013 ◽  
pp. 391
Author(s):  
Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia Eceizabarrena
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

Este artículo es un estudio relativo a la tutela judicial de los Derechos Fundamentales cuando se aplica Derecho de la Unión en el ámbito interno, y a cuáles son los principales problemas con los que se topa el Juez nacional que aplica el Derecho de la Unión al llevar a cabo dicha función protectora. El trabajo, dicho de forma más concreta, se centra en el examen de una serie de recientes y decisivas resoluciones jurisdiccionales, dictadas tanto por parte del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea como por parte del Tribunal Constitucional Español, que analizan problemas y señalan soluciones relativas a esas cuestiones, además de mostrar cuál es la evolución y el estado de la situación al respecto. Se trata de resoluciones que abordan cuestiones de fondo, como, por ejemplo: ¿hasta qué punto es posible utilizar estándares nacionales de protección de los Derechos Fundamentales en situaciones conectadas con el Derecho de la Unión o con su aplicación, en lugar de utilizar el sistema de protección de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea? Y asimismo, resoluciones que atienden a cuestiones de dimensión más procesal como la de dirimir hasta qué punto tiene autonomía el Juez nacional a la hora de plantear una petición prejudicial (se entiende a la hora de tutelar derechos reconocidos por normas de la Unión) en relación a las normas procesales nacionales.This article deals with the judicial protection of fundamental rights when EU Law is applied at national level and the main problems national judges have to deal with when applying EU Law as protectors of rights. More precisely, the work is focused on the examination of some recent and decisive judicial decisions, both by the European Court of Justice and by the Spanish Constitutional Court which analyze the problems and address the solutions to those questions besides showing the evolution and current situation in that regard. They are decisions that deal with the merits as for example to which extent it might be possible to use national standards of protection of fundamental rights in situations connected to EU Law or to its application instead of using the system of protection of EU human rights. Likewise, they are decisions which handle with more procedural questions as for example to what extent national judges are autonomous to file a preliminary question (it is understood that when it comes time to protect rights acknowledged by the EU) relative to national procedural rules.

scholarly journals Parallele Anwendbarkeit von Grundrechtecharta der EU und nationalen Grundrechten

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 9-16
Author(s):  
Ivo Pilving
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
National Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Parallel Analysis ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Decisive Importance ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Constitution

Pursuant to its Article 51 (1), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights covers the implementation of EU law. Since 2014, the Estonian Supreme Court has applied the assumption that the Charter, in principle, does not preclude parallel applicability of national-level fundamental rights in areas subject to EU law, although the primacy, unity, and effectiveness of EU law must not be compromised thereby. The Member State's margin of appreciation should not be considered a precondition for the relevance of national fundamental rights. Even mandatory norms of EU law, which inevitably require certain national measures (e.g., permission to use a piece of music for sampling as in CJEU case C-476/17: Pelham), do not exclude the applicability of constitutional rights (here, the composer's copyright), though these can justify their restriction. Hence, the relevant piece of EU legislation itself must be valid. The CJEU should follow the principle of constitutional plurality in dialogue with national courts when examining the validity of EU norms restricting national fundamental rights. A parallel analysis of the national constitution and Charter by the competent national court would assist the CJEU in issuing a preliminary ruling. The most favourable standard of the fundamental rights in sense of the Article 53 should not be determined on merely abstract terms. Instead, the results of parallel analysis in light of the pending case should be of decisive importance. One conclusion presented is that in cases of multipolar conflict, there remains the possibility that a even fundamental right of one person that is derived from a national constitution can sometimes justify infringement on the charter-based right of another if there is no secondary legal balance of legal positions. In addition, exceptional situations might exist wherein fundamental principles of national constitutions may be granted precedence over the effectiveness of EU law.

scholarly journals An approach to today’s EU constitutionality control – understanding this EU inter-jurisdictional phenomenon in light of effective judicial protection

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-124
Author(s):  
Joana Covelo de Abreu
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Level ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

Under today’s European constitutional demands, effective judicial protection sets the tone concerning potential jurisdictional instruments able to act as constitutionality control mechanisms. Inter-jurisdictionality stands for different and complementary jurisdictional systems living togetherin the same space and it aims to understand how their reflexive interactions can be maintained to promote effective judicial protection. Both the infringement procedure and the preliminary ruling act as constitutional controls. The first allows the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to evaluate the incompatibility of national solutions/omissions with EU law but, to meet its full effectiveness, widening legitimate parties needs to be considered as well. Also, validity preliminary rulings act as a constitutional control in proceedings relating to individuals – national judges should be aware of their referring obligations to the CJEU. There are voices amongst European academia that advocate a new constitutional procedure to promote fundamental rights’ protection. However, the main formulas highlighted rely on solutions tested on the national level which can compromise their efficacy. We perceive an inter-jurisdictional paradigm as the proper approach since it will allowthe promotion of effective judicial protection at a constitutional level as a new EU dogmatically thought phenomenon. This is to ensure judicial integration can be perceived as a reality, engaged in pursuing the future of the EU.

scholarly journals New Challenges for European Comparative Law: The Judicial Reception of EU Non-Discrimination Law and a turn to a Multi-layered Culturally-informed Comparative Law Method for a better Understanding of the EU Harmonization

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 721-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jule Mulder
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Culturally Informed ◽  
Harmonization Process ◽  
Legal Harmonization ◽  
The Eu

This article argues that comparative law needs to explore its critical potential when engaging with the European harmonization process and its effects on the law of the Member States. In the first part, the article evaluates existing comparative law methods and their suitability to identify legal and cultural factors that influence the judicial reception of EU harmonized law on a national level. Using EU non-discrimination law as a case study, it questions to what extent traditional methods are suitable to explain differences in the national judicial reception of EU harmonized law, despite the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union to interpret EU law. In doing so, it considers the potential of critical comparative law for the development of a deeper understanding of the national courts' reception of EU harmonized law as a key part of the broader legal harmonization process. In the second part, the article develops an original multi-layered culturally informed method to compare EU harmonized law. The proposal goes beyond the existing methods of comparative law by including critical aspects and stressing the relevance of embedding a general normative framework in any comparative critique. It challenges comparatists to reach deeply into national cultural spheres and to identify key influences on the application of EU rules and EU-national legal ‘hybrids’. The method creates room for multi-layered narratives of comparison aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of the national legal and non-legal cultural background that can hinder or facilitate harmonization processes. This enriched comparative critique can offer new insights into the process of legal harmonization in the EU, particularly by focusing on the point of application rather than the previous phases of creation of EU law and its reception by Member States.

scholarly journals The Contributions Of CJEU In The Name Of The Principle Of Balancing – A Test Of The Role Of The Court?

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 472-478
Author(s):  
Gina Orga-Dumitriu
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract From the traditional functions of the general principles of the EU law – of interpretation, completion of the gaps and legality control, the principle of balancing seems to meet the most the exigencies of the first of these. The limits of the role of CJEU are certainly put to the test when it is called to settle conflicts between fundamental rights/fundamental freedoms. The trends formulated in Schmidberger (on the conflict between the free circulation of the commodities and the freedom of expression) or Promusicae (on the conflict between the right to the effective protection of the intellectual property and the right to the respect of the private life and the protection of the personal data) are more than illustrative. The doctrine assessments of the action of this principle reflect three fields in which the applicability thereof tends to reserve to the Court a role that is susceptible of creating controversies on its traditional extension. According to the authorized voice of Professor Norbert Reich, the balancing in the jurisprudence on the abusive clauses, the balancing for the avoidance of excessive protection and the balancing in social conflicts (making visible an aggravation of the conflict between fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms) are concerned.

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 The Action for Damages as a Fundamental Rights Remedy: Holding Frontex Liable

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 532-548
Author(s):  
Melanie Fink
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
Accountability Gap ◽  
The Eu

AbstractFrontex has become one of the major players in European external border management. As its powers and resources have increased, so have the challenges surrounding its compliance with fundamental rights. A major concern continues to be how to ensure legal accountability for fundamental rights violations that occur in the context of its activities. While Member States can be held accountable before their own national courts and before international courts, neither of these options are available in relation to Frontex. But it can be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union to account for the conformity of its conduct with EU law. This Article explores the potential of the EU action for damages to offer a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by Frontex. It identifies where public liability law falls short of providing a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by EU bodies, explores the possibilities to close that gap, and assesses the implications this has for Frontex’s liability. The Article argues that the action for damages may be the means to close the accountability gap in the specific case of Frontex, but also more generally in circumstances where EU administration is delivered in the form of informal or factual conduct. If it is to fulfill that role, the CJEU would have to lower the threshold for EU liability where fundamental rights are concerned.

The role of national courts between EU obligations and national standards of protection of fundamental rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annalisa Lucifora
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This article focuses on the role of national courts in the implementation of the EU legal system. Since Simmenthal and Costa v. E.N.E.L., these courts are called upon, as part of their duty of sincere cooperation, to ensure the full application of EU law in all Member States and to protect the rights which that law confers on individuals. The duty to set aside conflicting provisions may be problematic in criminal cases. The issue has recently been put in the spotlight again by the Taricco case, which shows how the removal of an inconsistency between domestic legislation and EU law could sometimes lead to an infringement of constitutional criminal law principles. The Taricco case also calls into question the relationship between the primacy of EU law and the protection of fundamental rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document