Articles for tag: CSAM, Datenschutz, Demokratie, EU Charter, EuGH, Mass Data Retention, Mass Surveillance, NCMEC, OSINT, Survailance, Verfassungsrecht

Protecting Victims Without Mass Surveillance

Mass data retention is on the rise. In the current heyday of security packages in Germany, we are now witnessing a “super grand coalition” in favor of mandatory IP address retention. Some are calling for greater protection for victims through data retention. Yet, what one often overlooks is the following: The investigative capacities of law enforcement authorities have never been better, and the digital data pools that can be analyzed have never been larger. Hence, victims must be protected without mass surveillance.

26. November 2024

, , , , , , , , , ,

Eyes Everywhere

Ten years after its groundbreaking judgment declaring the Data Retention Directive incompatible with the EU Charter, the Full Court significantly eased its previously strict requirements. On 30 April 2024, it issued La Quadrature Du Net II and, for the first time, declared the general and indiscriminate retention of IP addresses permissible for the purpose of fighting general crime. Given the CJEU’s fundamental change of heart, we have gathered a range of scholars to contextualize the judgment and situate it within the broader debate on mass data retention, online surveillance, and anonymity.

26. November 2024

, , , ,

Keine allgemeine Verfassungsaufsicht über die Unionswerte im Vertragsverletzungsverfahren

Am 19. Dezember 2022 reichte die Europäische Kommission in der Rechtssache C-769/22 eine Vertragsverletzungsklage ein, in der sie im zweiten Klagegrund eine eigenständige Verletzung von Art. 2 EUV geltend machte. Dies löste eine breite Diskussion darüber aus, ob der EuGH seine Wertejudikatur in Zukunft so weiterentwickeln könnte, dass Art. 2 EUV auch als eigenständige Rechtsgrundlage herangezogen werden kann – ohne eine Verbindung zu spezifischen Bestimmungen des Unionsrechts.

26. November 2024

, , , , ,

European Society Strikes Back

“This is a frontal and deep attack against the … European society.” With this remarkable statement the Commission has started the “largest human rights battle in EU history”: the infringement proceedings against the Hungarian anti-LGBTIQ* law. The Commission claims that this law breaches the internal market, the Charter rights and the Union’s common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The “mega hearing”, which took place on 19 November 2024, is now facing its ultimate test: can the Member States’ compliance with Article 2 TEU be reviewed before the Court of Justice?

26. November 2024

, , , , ,

Two Courts, Two Visions

The diverging standards of protection concerning the right to a fair trial, as interpreted by the CJEU and the ECtHR, remain a critical obstacle to the EU’s renewed attempt at accession to the ECHR. In this field, the two Courts seem to be drifting further apart rather than converging, leading to unresolved conflicts between the standard of fundamental rights protection and mutual trust obligations in the EU. Except in the unlikely event of a course-correction by the CJEU, this means that we are no closer to accession today than we were ten years ago, when the now-infamous Opinion 2/13 was handed down.

4. November 2024

, , , , , , ,

Enhancing Fundamental Rights Protection

The EU should ensure fundamental rights’ compatibility of EU legislation before its adoption. To that effect, we propose three distinct paths to improve the EU control mechanisms. Whilst mechanisms to ensure quality control do exist, primarily in the form of impact assessments, these mostly remain a merely formal exercise. Henceforth, we suggest strengthening the ex ante fundamental rights review of EU legislation through enhanced involvement of FRA in the legislative process.

4. November 2024

, , , ,

Stuck Between Unity and Diversity

The role of the EU Charter in disputes concerning fundamental rights standards between the EU and Member States has been characterized by ambiguity ever since the Charter’s inception. As the EU deepens integration of Member States to effectively face the challenges ahead, I advocate for a pluralistic interpretation of Article 53 of the Charter that allows for a greater degree of accommodation of national particularities. In that way, one would reduce constitutional tensions and find that there may be unity in diversity after all.

2. November 2024

, , , ,

Pouring New Wine into Old Wineskins

The three seemingly trivial observations that follow inform three substantive proposals regarding the protection of fundamental rights within the EU. To address the challenges faced by national constitutional courts and the CJEU, it is essential to leverage existing procedural tools within domestic legal systems. Additionally, expanding the applicability of these versatile tools and considering a structural revision of the judicial bodies may facilitate the creation of hybrid entities that could collaboratively address major issues, thereby steering constitutional developments in the EU.

1. November 2024

, , ,

Fundamental Rights Come Off the Bench

In 2014, the European Court of Justice clearly prioritised the EU’s position on the unity and effectiveness of EU law over the protection of fundamental rights (Opinion 2/13). Ten years later, in October 2024, a judgment pitting football against the media seems to have turned the tables. In Real Madrid vs Le Monde, the Court held that excessive defamation damages may breach the freedom of the press and trigger the public policy exception. This is a significant shift, prioritising fundamental rights protection over the traditional objective of seamless judicial cooperation across the EU.

31. Oktober 2024

, , ,

Why the EU Charter Matters

This blog post argues that the most interesting aspect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at the moment is its impact on remedies in national law. Almost 15 years since its entry into force, it is not unusual to meet domestic lawyers and judges who will voice doubts as to whether the Charter really matters in practice. Yet, through the right to an effective remedy under Article 47, the Charter opens up domestic law for new (or modified) remedies, thus placing national procedural autonomy under greater constraint than it was from the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.

31. Oktober 2024

, , , , ,