The EU AI Act’s Impact on Security Law

The process of integrating European security law is imperfect and unfinished – given the constraints posed by the European Treaties, it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. This inevitable imperfection, lamentable as it may be, creates opportunities for legal scholarship. Legal scholars are needed to explore the gaps and cracks in this new security architecture and to ultimately develop proposals for how to fix them. This debate series, being a product of VB Security and Crime, takes the recently adopted AI Act as an opportunity to do just that: It brings together legal scholars, both German and international, in order to explain, analyze and criticize the EU AI Act’s impact on security law from both an EU and German national law perspective.

Offener Zugang zum Grundgesetz

Weltweit erstarken autoritäre Kräfte, die sich offen gegen demokratische Strukturen wenden. In der Rechtswissenschaft wird zumeist das klassische Instrumentarium der wehrhaften Demokratie diskutiert. Kaum eine Rolle spielt dagegen das Thema der Verfassungsrechtsvermittlung – obwohl für die Rechtsbefolgung und damit für die Resilienz der Verfassungsordnung Normverständnis bekanntlich viel wichtiger ist als Zwang. Welchen Beitrag aber leistet die Rechtswissenschaft, Verständnis für und Einsicht in den Wert unserer Verfassung zu fördern? Wie steht es überhaupt um ihr Verhältnis zur verfassungsrechtlichen Bildung?

Transnational-wehrhafte Demokratie

Am 13.11.2024 hat eine Gruppe aus 113 Abgeordneten des Deutschen Bundestags einen Antrag auf die Initiierung eines Parteiverbotsverfahrens gegenüber der „Alternative für Deutschland“ eingebracht. Die bisherige Debatte konzentriert sich schwerpunktmäßig auf die Voraussetzungen und Erfolgsaussichten eines (Teil-)Verbots der Partei aus grundgesetzlicher Perspektive. Dabei droht die nationale Brille den Blick auf die transnationalen Interlegalitäten zu verzerren und dem Stand der europäischen Integration nicht gerecht zu werden.

Added value(s)?

During the hearing in the infringement proceedings against Hungary’s ‘anti- LGBTIQ+ Law’, the Commission placed the values of the EU at the heart of its pleas. Following its publication in the Official Journal, some expected (while others feared) that the Commission’s infringement action would rely on Article 2 TEU (which set out the values of the EU) as a self-standing ground. Instead, during the hearing, the Commission’s representatives were adamant that Article 2 may only be invoked in connection with other EU law provisions. That is a welcome clarification. Grounding an infringement action solely on Article 2 would be unwise. Yet, the inclusion of these values among the pleas is legally, politically, and morally significant.

A Right to Anonymity in the Digital Age

Although digital anonymity is associated with a wide range of opportunities, it also stands in the way of successful criminal prosecution. The right to respect private and family life under the the EU Charter as well as the right to protection of personal data are of fundamental importance for natural persons. However, since life is increasingly taking place online, anonymity can be exploited to spread hate, discriminatory content, and fake news. Considering these risks, the ECJ has opened the door to data retention in Europe and thereby restricted digital anonymity.

Data Retention Laws and La Quadrature du Net II

La Quadrature du Net II has been criticized for allowing generalized metadata retention measures. However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the law must not become a mechanism for protecting criminals. The scale of online rights violations are a real problem. P2P networks are not only a threat to copyright protection, but also an environment for the distribution of content related to serious crime. It is therefore necessary to strike a balance between these two concerns and to propose solutions that adequately protect users without guaranteeing impunity for criminals.

Testing the Waters of Private Data Pools

Nowadays, data is mostly collected not by state actors but by businesses. In 2010, the German Constitutional Court held that the legislator has to evaluate the overall level of surveillance in Germany before enacting new data retention obligations. In light of the recent rejuvenised discussions about data retention and a general surveillance account, this text explores whether such an account needs to consider private data pools and what is required for a successful evaluation.

Compensation for Victims of Violent Crimes

On 7 November 2024, the CJEU provided clarifications for building a cohesive EU-wide framework for compensating crime victims. The ruling not only curtails Member States’ discretion in interpreting key concepts that are critical to defining eligibility for compensation, but it also strengthens the interplay between the Compensation Directive and the Victims’ Rights Directive. This judgment reinforces the the harmonized definition of victim established in Article 2 of the Victims’ Rights Directive, solidifying its status for determining those entitled to victim’s rights.

Data Retention in a Cross-Border Perspective

This blog post compares the European and US approach to metadata surveillance and highlights some challenges that arise therefrom. It aims at shedding light on the main legal issues that may arise for the future of global counterterrorism. The essential role of courts in striking and keeping a balance between security and protection of human rights is further examined in light of the judgement in La Quadrature du Net II. Efforts should be made to avoid that the economic power of the US would lower the privacy standards when it comes to metadata surveillance.

The Long and Winding Road

The Court of Justice’s Quadrature du Net judgements mark another key moment in the complex and long-lasting legal debate on mass data retention in the European Union. This blogpost critically discusses the “constitutionalisation path” outlined by the EU Judges as well as the fragmented roads taken by Member States, with specific attention to Italy. Ultimately, it demonstrates the need for a decisive EU legislators’ intervention, able to draw the future path of data retention regimes.