重访公安

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY European Journal of Migration and Law Pub Date : 2021-11-10 DOI:10.1163/15718166-12340105
Timo Knäbe, Hervé Yves Caniard
{"title":"重访公安","authors":"Timo Knäbe, Hervé Yves Caniard","doi":"10.1163/15718166-12340105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWith its Judgment of 27 November 2019 in Case T-31/18 Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Court of Justice of the European Union opened a new chapter in the elaboration of the two seemingly antagonistic interests enshrined in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: the public’s fundamental right to transparency versus the public’s interest as regards “public security”. Focusing on the evolution of “public security” in the EU since 1993, this case note analyses the CJEU’s balancing of these principles, its increased scrutiny of Frontex administrative decisions, and the extent to which Frontex had to justify its denial to grant access to documents through the lens of the management of sensitive operational information. This examination puts the judgment in the context of the ongoing situation in the central Mediterranean and, by providing detailed insights on the underlying operational considerations, shows that the fundamental and wide-reaching right to transparency has to be balanced with the need to protect crew and vessels and the implementation and enforcement of the Frontex mandate. While continuing established case law in its use of the public security exception (a so-called absolute exception that is not subject to an overriding public interest test), in this case the CJEU subsumed, for the first time, individual subjective rights and legal interests under public security. This article argues that this amounts to the individualisation of public security. As pointed out by Frontex in its written and oral defence, the CJEU thus opened the door to extending the scope of public security to also include other groups of people in the government’s continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control. The conclusion from the Frontex Case is thus that protecting life at sea and ensuring effective border surveillance are two sides of the same medal as they have a common aim: combatting human smugglers, traffickers in human beings and other criminals and safeguarding life, safety and physical integrity of law-enforcement crew and migrants alike.","PeriodicalId":51819,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Migration and Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Security Revisited\",\"authors\":\"Timo Knäbe, Hervé Yves Caniard\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718166-12340105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nWith its Judgment of 27 November 2019 in Case T-31/18 Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Court of Justice of the European Union opened a new chapter in the elaboration of the two seemingly antagonistic interests enshrined in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: the public’s fundamental right to transparency versus the public’s interest as regards “public security”. Focusing on the evolution of “public security” in the EU since 1993, this case note analyses the CJEU’s balancing of these principles, its increased scrutiny of Frontex administrative decisions, and the extent to which Frontex had to justify its denial to grant access to documents through the lens of the management of sensitive operational information. This examination puts the judgment in the context of the ongoing situation in the central Mediterranean and, by providing detailed insights on the underlying operational considerations, shows that the fundamental and wide-reaching right to transparency has to be balanced with the need to protect crew and vessels and the implementation and enforcement of the Frontex mandate. While continuing established case law in its use of the public security exception (a so-called absolute exception that is not subject to an overriding public interest test), in this case the CJEU subsumed, for the first time, individual subjective rights and legal interests under public security. This article argues that this amounts to the individualisation of public security. As pointed out by Frontex in its written and oral defence, the CJEU thus opened the door to extending the scope of public security to also include other groups of people in the government’s continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control. The conclusion from the Frontex Case is thus that protecting life at sea and ensuring effective border surveillance are two sides of the same medal as they have a common aim: combatting human smugglers, traffickers in human beings and other criminals and safeguarding life, safety and physical integrity of law-enforcement crew and migrants alike.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Migration and Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Migration and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340105\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Migration and Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340105","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2019年11月27日,欧盟法院在T-31/18 Luisa Izuzquiza和Arne Semsrott诉欧洲边境和海岸警卫队(Frontex)一案中作出判决,开启了阐述2001年5月30日关于公众进入欧洲议会的第1049/2001号条例(EC)所载两个看似对立的利益的新篇章,理事会和委员会文件:公众获得透明度的基本权利与公众在“公共安全”方面的利益。本案例说明以1993年以来欧盟“公共安全”的演变为重点,分析了欧盟法院对这些原则的平衡、对Frontex行政决定的加强审查,以及Frontex必须在多大程度上证明其拒绝通过敏感操作信息的管理来访问文件的正当性。这项审查将这一判断放在地中海中部当前局势的背景下进行,并通过对基本的业务考虑提供详细的见解,表明基本和广泛的透明度权利必须与保护船员和船只以及执行和执行Frontex任务的需要相平衡。虽然在使用公共安全例外(一种不受凌驾性公共利益测试的所谓绝对例外)方面延续了既定的判例法,但在本案中,欧盟法院首次将个人主观权利和法律利益纳入公共安全。本文认为,这相当于公共安全的个性化。正如Frontex在其书面和口头辩护中指出的那样,欧盟法院因此打开了扩大公共安全范围的大门,将其他群体也包括在政府的持续和排他性法律和事实控制之下。因此,Frontex案件的结论是,保护海上生命和确保有效的边境监视是同一枚勋章的两面,因为它们有一个共同的目标:打击人口走私者、人口贩运者和其他罪犯,保护执法人员和移民的生命、安全和人身完整。
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
Public Security Revisited
With its Judgment of 27 November 2019 in Case T-31/18 Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the Court of Justice of the European Union opened a new chapter in the elaboration of the two seemingly antagonistic interests enshrined in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents: the public’s fundamental right to transparency versus the public’s interest as regards “public security”. Focusing on the evolution of “public security” in the EU since 1993, this case note analyses the CJEU’s balancing of these principles, its increased scrutiny of Frontex administrative decisions, and the extent to which Frontex had to justify its denial to grant access to documents through the lens of the management of sensitive operational information. This examination puts the judgment in the context of the ongoing situation in the central Mediterranean and, by providing detailed insights on the underlying operational considerations, shows that the fundamental and wide-reaching right to transparency has to be balanced with the need to protect crew and vessels and the implementation and enforcement of the Frontex mandate. While continuing established case law in its use of the public security exception (a so-called absolute exception that is not subject to an overriding public interest test), in this case the CJEU subsumed, for the first time, individual subjective rights and legal interests under public security. This article argues that this amounts to the individualisation of public security. As pointed out by Frontex in its written and oral defence, the CJEU thus opened the door to extending the scope of public security to also include other groups of people in the government’s continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control. The conclusion from the Frontex Case is thus that protecting life at sea and ensuring effective border surveillance are two sides of the same medal as they have a common aim: combatting human smugglers, traffickers in human beings and other criminals and safeguarding life, safety and physical integrity of law-enforcement crew and migrants alike.
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
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Migration and Law is a quarterly journal on migration law and policy with specific emphasis on the European Union, the Council of Europe and migration activities within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This journal differs from other migration journals by focusing on both the law and policy within the field of migration, as opposed to examining immigration and migration policies from a wholly sociological perspective. The Journal is the initiative of the Centre for Migration Law of the University of Nijmegen, in co-operation with the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group.
期刊最新文献
The ‘Border Security’ Concept in EU Law EU Boots on the Ground and Effective Judicial Protection against Frontex’s Operational Powers in Return: Lessons from Case T‑600/21 When Do Union Citizens and Their Families Have the Right to Equal Treatment on Grounds of Nationality in EU Law? The Fiction of Non-entry in European Migration Law: Its Implications on the Rights of Asylum Seekers and Irregular Migrants at European Borders Derogations in Exchange of Increased Responsibility: How Can This Fix the Broken Promise for More Solidarity in the EU?
×
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