A Struggle for Competence: National Security, Surveillance and the Scope of EU Law at the Court of Justice of European Union

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2021-06-13 DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12652
Monika Zalnieriute
{"title":"A Struggle for Competence: National Security, Surveillance and the Scope of EU Law at the Court of Justice of European Union","authors":"Monika Zalnieriute","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Privacy International and Quadrature Du Net, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) ruled that the e-Privacy Directive and EU Charter on Fundamental Rights generally prevent national law from enabling bulk retention and transmission of traffic and location data. However, in Quadrature Du Net, the Court clarified that EU law does not preclude indiscriminate data retention measures when Member States can prove serious threats to national security. In such cases, bulk data can only be retained during a strictly necessary period and the decision must be subject to review by a court or independent administrative body. The judgments will have serious implications for other data retention and sharing arrangements, such as the PNR, the proposed e-Privacy Regulation and e-Evidence package, international data sharing agreements, and also the third countries seeking adequacy decisions under the GDPR, including post-Brexit UK. The rulings suggest that CJEU has become an important actor in national security landscape, which has been outside the scope of European integration, but has become a ground for political struggle between the EU institutions and Member States. Yet, while Privacy International is an unequivocal assertion of CJEU’s authority in the area of national security and a victory for data protection, Quadrature Du Net does not oppose indiscriminate data retention in principle and is an ambivalent response by the CJEU in the face of political pressure.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1468-2230.12652","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12652","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In Privacy International and Quadrature Du Net, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) ruled that the e-Privacy Directive and EU Charter on Fundamental Rights generally prevent national law from enabling bulk retention and transmission of traffic and location data. However, in Quadrature Du Net, the Court clarified that EU law does not preclude indiscriminate data retention measures when Member States can prove serious threats to national security. In such cases, bulk data can only be retained during a strictly necessary period and the decision must be subject to review by a court or independent administrative body. The judgments will have serious implications for other data retention and sharing arrangements, such as the PNR, the proposed e-Privacy Regulation and e-Evidence package, international data sharing agreements, and also the third countries seeking adequacy decisions under the GDPR, including post-Brexit UK. The rulings suggest that CJEU has become an important actor in national security landscape, which has been outside the scope of European integration, but has become a ground for political struggle between the EU institutions and Member States. Yet, while Privacy International is an unequivocal assertion of CJEU’s authority in the area of national security and a victory for data protection, Quadrature Du Net does not oppose indiscriminate data retention in principle and is an ambivalent response by the CJEU in the face of political pressure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
权力之争:欧盟法院的国家安全、监视和欧盟法的范围
在Privacy International和Quadrature Du Net中,欧盟法院大庭裁定,电子隐私指令和欧盟基本权利宪章通常阻止国家法律允许流量和位置数据的批量保留和传输。然而,在Quadrature Du Net中,法院澄清说,当成员国能够证明对国家安全的严重威胁时,欧盟法律并不排除不分青红皂白的数据保留措施。在这种情况下,批量数据只能在严格必要的时间内保留,并且该决定必须接受法院或独立行政机构的审查。这些判决将对其他数据保留和共享安排产生严重影响,如PNR、拟议的电子隐私条例和电子证据包、国际数据共享协议,以及根据GDPR寻求充分性决定的第三国,包括脱欧后的英国,这已经超出了欧洲一体化的范围,但已经成为欧盟机构和成员国之间政治斗争的基础。然而,尽管Privacy International明确宣称了CJEU在国家安全领域的权威,并取得了数据保护的胜利,但Quadrature Du Net原则上并不反对不分青红皂白地保留数据,这是CJEU在面临政治压力时的矛盾回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access Performative Environmental Law Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1