EU Privacy and Public-Private Collaboration

Core state functions, such as law enforcement, are increasingly delegated to private actors. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the development and use of security technologies. This public-private collaboration harbours detrimental consequences for fundamental rights and the rule of law; in particular, for the principle of legality. The policy outcomes which result from this collaboration are not democratically accountable, and allow human rights to be superseded by private, profit-driven interests.

11. Mai 2023

, , , , , , ,

Challenging Bias and Discrimination in Automated Border Decisions

In Ligue des droits humains, the Court of Justice of the European Union explicitly addresses the fact that the use of AI and self-learning risk models may deprive data subjects of their right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the Charter. The importance of this judgment cannot be understated for non-EU citizens and at the European borders more generally.

11. Mai 2023

, , , , , , , ,

Foreseeability and the Rule of Law in Data Protection after the PNR judgment

&

The rule of law cannot be reconciled with the existence of secret laws, unclear laws and laws which cannot be obeyed. However, this may be difficult to realise in practice, where full transparency is at odds with the legislative goals; where a certain degree of flexibility of rules is necessary to address changing circumstances, in which these rules function; and where a disconnect occurs between the visions of the lawmaker and reality created by modern technologies that are utilized to pursue them. The CJEU's ruling in Lige des droits humains on Passenger Name Record Directive underscores the difficulty of foreseeability of algorithmic measures and the rule of law.

10. Mai 2023

, , , , , ,

The European Legal Architecture on Security

As the European legal architecture on internal security is being built around large-scale databases, AI tools and other new technologies, the relationship between the public and private sectors has become increasingly complex. We examine one aspect of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s recent judgment in Ligue des droits humains, namely the data protection rules applicable to cooperation between the public and private entities in personal data sharing. The judgment enhances the ‘personal data autonomy’ of individuals and requires public authorities to justify to a high standard any obligations it seeks to place on the private sector to share personal data related, directly or indirectly, to travel by air.

10. Mai 2023

, , , , , ,

Caution: Safeguards may appear more robust than they are

At a time when the European security architecture is evolving, and when national lawmakers must pay greater attention to an evolving set of common standards and safeguards to prevent disproportionate government access to data, it is essential to shed critical light on their implementation in actual practice. As different as the EU PNR Directive and the German legal framework are, they both include provisions that seek to prevent disproportionate government access and to ensure effective and independent review of data collection and subsequent data processing.

9. Mai 2023

, , , , , ,

Passengers Name Records and Security

&

The EU Passenger Name Records Directive is based on the logic of preventive security. Th CJEU ruling, Ligue des droits humains, offers an opportunity for national judges to question more radically the idea of generalised preventive security that seeks to anticipate human behaviour through the creation of risk profiles and statistical correlations (instead of causality).

9. Mai 2023

, , , , , ,

Machine learning and profiling in the PNR system

Automated processing of personal data, which is what Passenger Name Record data are, can lead to forms of profiling; certain individuals or groups of people are more likely to be excluded based on the transfer of their data than others. In its Passenger Name Record judgment, the CJEU extensively discusses discrimination risks, and it set a number of conditions to prevent them. Unfortunately, not all of its considerations are perfectly clear and some of the solutions the CJEU proposes are not entirely satisfactory.

8. Mai 2023

, , , , , ,

The Future of the European Security Architecture: A Debate Series

This debate series is dedicated to Ligue des Droits Humains – a case in which the Court of Justice of the European Union decided on the fate of one of the main drivers of this development: the Directive on on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. The PNR Directive, being one of the first major EU-wide examples of predictive policing, is not just interesting in itself. It exemplifies the emergence and gradual consolidation of a new security architecture in Europe.

8. Mai 2023

, , ,

Closure and Continuity

Trade, sovereignty, rights and freedoms, courts, and constitutional change are lenses through which we can examine how two politically, culturally, and linguistically inextricably linked common law countries have defined their diverging relationship with the EU. 50 years on the divergence is complete. The UK is now a third country, charting a future outside the EU, while Ireland remains one of 27 Member States reporting high levels of trust and support for the EU. Hence 50 years on we have both the desire for closure (for the UK) and continuity (for Ireland). In fact, we argue that closure and continuity are necessary for the relations between both states and their relationship with the EU now and in the next half century.

19. April 2023

, , ,

Democracy, Sovereignty and Europe

Fifty years after Ireland and UK joined the EEC together in January 1973, the two states find themselves on radically different European trajectories. Both are common law countries with shared traditions of parliamentary governance and strong cultural links to the wider Anglosphere. However, in Ireland there is broad elite and popular support for maintaining alignment with the requirements of EU and ECHR law – while, in the UK, such European influences trigger a sharp allergic reaction. What explains this dramatic divergence? The answer perhaps lies partially in the differing ‘constitutional imaginaries’ of Ireland and the UK, and how EU and ECHR alignment is understood to impact on the exercise of popular sovereignty in both states.

12. April 2023

, , , ,