欧盟大规模监控的宪法化:公民社会的要求、司法能动性和立法惰性

Edoardo Celeste, Giulia Formici
{"title":"欧盟大规模监控的宪法化:公民社会的要求、司法能动性和立法惰性","authors":"Edoardo Celeste, Giulia Formici","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Despite the shock provoked by the Snowden revelations, mass surveillance is still a reality in the EU. However, over the past few years, it has been possible to observe a gradual constitutionalization of these practices. This Article maps the ongoing process of progressively defining the constitutional limits and societal affordances of mass surveillance in the EU by focusing on the three main actors who contribute to it. First, this Article presents civil society as the propeller of this trend. Civil society not only advocated for a ban on general surveillance systems in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, but also promoted a series of strategic litigations to challenge state surveillance practices at national and EU levels. Second, it analyses CJEU case law as the main constitutionalizing engine of this process. The Court pragmatically ascertained that an absolute prohibition of mass surveillance did not appear to be a realistic solution and put significant effort into actively defining the legal boundaries of these practices by striving to find an equilibrium between Member State interests and citizens’ fundamental rights. Third, it considers the approaches taken by national legislators to be a slowing factor. States are still reluctant to incorporate the constitutional standards progressively developed by courts despite the now significant body of judicially created parameters in the field.","PeriodicalId":503760,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constitutionalizing Mass Surveillance in the EU: Civil Society Demands, Judicial Activism, and Legislative Inertia\",\"authors\":\"Edoardo Celeste, Giulia Formici\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/glj.2023.105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Despite the shock provoked by the Snowden revelations, mass surveillance is still a reality in the EU. However, over the past few years, it has been possible to observe a gradual constitutionalization of these practices. This Article maps the ongoing process of progressively defining the constitutional limits and societal affordances of mass surveillance in the EU by focusing on the three main actors who contribute to it. First, this Article presents civil society as the propeller of this trend. Civil society not only advocated for a ban on general surveillance systems in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, but also promoted a series of strategic litigations to challenge state surveillance practices at national and EU levels. Second, it analyses CJEU case law as the main constitutionalizing engine of this process. The Court pragmatically ascertained that an absolute prohibition of mass surveillance did not appear to be a realistic solution and put significant effort into actively defining the legal boundaries of these practices by striving to find an equilibrium between Member State interests and citizens’ fundamental rights. Third, it considers the approaches taken by national legislators to be a slowing factor. States are still reluctant to incorporate the constitutional standards progressively developed by courts despite the now significant body of judicially created parameters in the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":503760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"German Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"German Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管斯诺登的爆料引发了震惊,但大规模监控在欧盟仍然是一个现实。然而,在过去几年中,我们可以观察到这些做法正在逐步宪法化。本文通过重点关注欧盟大规模监控的三个主要参与者,描绘了欧盟逐步界定大规模监控的宪法限制和社会承受能力的持续过程。首先,本文认为民间社会是这一趋势的推动者。斯诺登事件曝光后,公民社会不仅倡导禁止一般监控系统,还推动了一系列战略性诉讼,在国家和欧盟层面挑战国家监控行为。其次,报告分析了欧盟法院的判例法,认为它是这一进程的主要宪法化引擎。法院以务实的态度确定绝对禁止大规模监控似乎不是一个现实的解决方案,并投入大量精力积极界定这些做法的法律界限,努力在成员国利益和公民基本权利之间找到平衡点。第三,它认为各国立法者采取的方法是一个减缓因素。尽管在这一领域已经有了大量的司法参数,但各国仍然不愿意采纳法院逐步制定的宪法标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Constitutionalizing Mass Surveillance in the EU: Civil Society Demands, Judicial Activism, and Legislative Inertia
Despite the shock provoked by the Snowden revelations, mass surveillance is still a reality in the EU. However, over the past few years, it has been possible to observe a gradual constitutionalization of these practices. This Article maps the ongoing process of progressively defining the constitutional limits and societal affordances of mass surveillance in the EU by focusing on the three main actors who contribute to it. First, this Article presents civil society as the propeller of this trend. Civil society not only advocated for a ban on general surveillance systems in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, but also promoted a series of strategic litigations to challenge state surveillance practices at national and EU levels. Second, it analyses CJEU case law as the main constitutionalizing engine of this process. The Court pragmatically ascertained that an absolute prohibition of mass surveillance did not appear to be a realistic solution and put significant effort into actively defining the legal boundaries of these practices by striving to find an equilibrium between Member State interests and citizens’ fundamental rights. Third, it considers the approaches taken by national legislators to be a slowing factor. States are still reluctant to incorporate the constitutional standards progressively developed by courts despite the now significant body of judicially created parameters in the field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Odious Debt Doctrine: The Equitable Rule Crime and Sanctions: Beyond Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool – ERRATUM Trust and the Procedural Requirements of Article 7(2) TEU: When More than One Bad Apple Spoils the Barrel Trust and the Exchange of EU Classified Information: The Example of Absolute Originator Control Impeding Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny at Europol Balancing Interests: Criminal Proceedings & Private Life Interference Under Martial Law in Ukraine
×
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