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.
Continue reading >>
Squaring the Circle
La Quadrature du Net II, which allows for the general retention of IP addresses to combat copyright infringements committed online, should not be viewed as carte blanche for general data retention measures by the Member States. Instead of watering down fundamental rights protection on a case-by-case approach, Member States should agree on guarantees and safeguards as well as a list of serious crimes allowing only the restricted use of targeted data retention in specific cases.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
Of Minor Benefits and Major Costs
Is general and indiscriminate data retention permissible under the EU fundamental rights framework? In La Quadrature du Net II, the Court tilts the metaphorical scale towards data retention. The take-away could contribute to the enlargement of privatised surveillance that rests on a generalised pre-emptive data retention scheme. The ECJ’s findings could cement intrusive practices emerging from the counter-terrorism narrative to regular state practice at the expense of fundamental rights protection.
Continue reading >>
Prioritising Member States Over Citizens
The classic story about the right to privacy and data protection in the EU is one of a high level of protection. Yet, this original rosy image is increasingly fading away, most visibly in the La Quadrature du Net litigation, which is a continuation of two dynamics. First, the Court is still cleaning up the residual mess that lingers on from the now annulled Data Retention Directive. Second, in so doing, it is incrementally allowing the Member States indiscriminately retain personal data. Hence, the Court is carving out space for Member States’ preferences to the detriment of the protection of the individual.
Continue reading >>
Die Vorratsdatenspeicherung
Die jüngeren Urteile des EuGHs zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung sind nicht als „kopernikanische Wende“ zu verstehen, in der der EuGH sein Selbstverständnis als Grundrechtsgericht aufgegeben hätte. Sie sind keine autoritär motivierte Abkehr von einer vormals grundrechtsfreundlichen Rechtsprechung. Vielmehr fügen sich die Urteile ein in die komplexe Entwicklung des ursprünglich national geprägten Sicherheitsverfassungsrechts. Diese Einordnung bedarf eines genaueren Blickes.
Continue reading >>
Data Retention
The recent judgements of the CJEU on data retention should not be regarded as an authoritarian move towards a less fundamental rights-sensible position of the Court. Rather, the case law adapts the ever more complex development of the constitutional security law, which was originally dominated by the Member States. As a European court, the CJEU cannot simply ban certain police measures but must respect the complexity and heterogeneity of national law enforcement agencies.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
More Protection for Victims Through Data Retention
Mass data retention is all about proportionality. The threat level determines the proportionality of the means – both of which are subject to the perpetual flux of time. Data retention is intended to protect victims of digital crimes. To protect freedom online, our security services urgently need to be able to access stored IP addresses. The alarming developments in our security situation are calling many certainties from the past into question. This also involves a re-evaluation of traffic data retention.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
Die stille Mehrheit hat ihre Stimme gefunden
Fünf Fragen an John Morijn und Luke Dimitrios Spieker
Continue reading >>The Silent Majority Has Found Its Voice
Five Questions to John Morijn and Luke Dimitrios Spieker
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
Reconciling National and European Constitutional Legalities
In light of the increasingly established autonomous European constitutional legality, national constitutional courts are now compelled to reconsider their roles. Through a progressive expansion of its direct applicability by national ordinary judges, the Charter of Fundamental Rights risks fostering the marginalization of national constitutional courts. I argue that the solution lies in a highly differentiated consolidation of constitutional legalities that integrates and embraces the unique roles of national constitutional courts in their respective systems of adjudication.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>
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.
Continue reading >>Whither, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
So, has the Charter come of age, now that it is nearing its quarter century, and has been binding in force for nearly 15 of those years. No longer is the Charter a “sleeping beauty”, and no longer are fundamental rights mere epiphenomena in EU law – offshoots framed in the amorphous category of “general principles of law” – creations of the EU’s earlier desire for legitimacy in its quest for greater integration. The EU Charter contains the essence of a common language, a currency that all can understand. And the EU is better with it than without it.
Continue reading >>
Waiting for Kinsa
On 18 June 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union will sit as a Grand Chamber in a hearing addressing the compatibility of the so-called Facilitators Package with the principle of proportionality set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). The Kinsa case (previously named Kinshasa) provides an opportunity for the CJEU to counteract the trend towards overcriminalisation of humanitarian action that has taken hold across the EU. This blog highlights the ways in which the Facilitator Package fails to take account of important fundamental rights and why the criminalization of solidarity that it has facilitated is not an inevitability but a political choice.
Continue reading >>