Category: 1.1 News from the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Daily news from the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

Mostly Found via:
Statewatch – http://statewatch.org
Eu Logos Athena – http://eu-logos.org/
Euobserver – http://euobserver.com/
Presseurop – http://presseurop.eu
Euractiv – http://euractiv.com/
European Media Monitor – http://emm.newsbrief.eu/overview.html
Réseau Universitaire Européen Droit de l’Espace de Liberté, Sécurité et Justice – http://gdr-elsj.eu/

House of Lords recommends to change the Governement’s strategy on the UK’s opt-in.

“The UK’s opt-in Protocol: implications of the Government’s approach”

NOTA BENE : the full report is accessible on the House of Lords website.

SUMMARY

This report focuses on the Government’s approach to the opt-in Protocol, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, by virtue of which the UK has a right not to participate in EU justice and home affairs (JHA) measures. At issue is whether the opt-in Protocol can be interpreted to mean that it is the content of an EU measure which determines the application of the Protocol, rather than a legal base under the JHA title of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (Title V).

We express no view on the desirability or otherwise of the opt-in mechanisms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. The function of this report is to examine the way in which the Government has sought to interpret those mechanisms.

We examine the Government’s interpretation of the expression “pursuant to [Title V]” in the opt-in Protocol, and conclude that it has an accepted legal meaning, namely that a Title V legal base is required before the opt-in can be triggered. As a consequence, we recommend that the Government reconsider its broader interpretation.

We consider the Government’s approach to determining the legal base of an EU measure with JHA content. We conclude that the distinction it draws between whole, partial, and incidental JHA measures is misconceived. We again recommend it reconsider its approach.

We consider whether the Government’s overall approach to the opt-in Protocol gives rise to legal uncertainty. We draw a distinction between potential and actual legal uncertainty, concluding that the potential of the Government’s policy to create legal uncertainty is considerable. We further conclude that the Government’s approach risks breaching the EU legal duty of “sincere cooperation”.

We then look at how the opt-in Protocol has been interpreted by the EU institutions. The Government believes that the Commission has actively pursued a policy of “legal base shopping”, in order to undermine the UK’s opt-in rights. In one specific case it provides evidence that lends some support to this allegation, in respect of the former Commission. With this partial exception, however, we conclude that there is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the Commission has circumvented the UK’s opt-in rights.

We review the approach of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to determining the legal base of international agreements and, while recognising the Government’s concerns, conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that the CJEU has sought deliberately to undermine the safeguards in the opt-in Protocol. We conclude that it is highly unlikely that the CJEU will change its established approach to determining legal base, including for measures with JHA content. We recommend that the Government review its litigation strategy in the light of this conclusion.

Finally, we recommend that the Government consider the feasibility of an inter-institutional agreement on the scope of Title V. Continue reading “House of Lords recommends to change the Governement’s strategy on the UK’s opt-in.”

Legal aid in criminal proceedings : will the European Parliament improve the Council’s “general approach” ?

by Claire Perinaud (FREE Group Trainee)

State of implementation of the Procedural rights roadmap.

After years of unsuccessful attempts, starting in 2004 with a general Commission proposal on procedural rights it was only from the end of 2009 that the EU legislation on procedural rights for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings has progressively taken shape. This was due to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (TFEU art. 82(2) now confer the power to adopt legislation on this issue), to article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (providing for the right to a fair trial) and to a political “roadmap” by which, in November 2009 the Council relaunched the Commission original proposals following a step-by-step approach instead of trying to adopt comprehensive legislation as initially foreseen in 2004.

However it is more than likely that this pragmatic approach and the transition from unanimity to qualified majority voting of the EU Member States in the Council (as from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon) has made possible the adoption in co-decision with the European Parliament of the three first legislative measures on suspects’ rights: Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings; Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings; and Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings.

Building on this success, at the end of November 2013 the Commission proposed a second “package” of suspects’ rights measures, comprising: a directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspected or accused in criminal proceedings; a recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable people suspected or accused in criminal proceedings; a directive strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings; a directive on the right to provisional legal aid for citizens suspected or accused of a crime; and a recommendation on the right to legal aid for suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings.

In 2014 the Council already reached a general approach on the proposal for a directive on procedural safeguards for children and on the directive on the presumption of innocence. On this basis the dialogue between the Council and the European Parliament (EP) is about to start and it is possible that in the coming months an agreement could be reached so that these texts could be adopted already at the EP’s “first reading” .
Last week the Council has reached (after eight months of internal negotiations!) a general approach also on the draft Directive on provisional legal aid for persons deprived of liberty in criminal proceedings and will start in the coming weeks the dialogue with the Parliament also on this text.

The coming months will then be extremely important for EU procedural rights in criminal matters even if it will not be easy to achieve the high results that the European Parliament and some Member States were expecting. In the absence of the energetic push of the former Commission Vice President Reding there is a risk that the negotiations may achieve the lowest common denominator between the Member States also due to the unwillingness of some of them to adopt any EU legislation which can create further financial and internal institutional tensions.

Legal aid : why make it simple when you can make it tricky ? Continue reading “Legal aid in criminal proceedings : will the European Parliament improve the Council’s “general approach” ?”

EU Accession to the ECHR: What to Do Next

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON VERFASSUNGblog
Fri 13 Mar 2015

by Andrew Duff

Some weeks have passed since the European Court of Justice delivered its startling binding Opinion 2/13 against the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There has already been much academic commentary on the complex Opinion. The European Commission has declared the need for a period of reflection. Mindful of its legal duty under Article 6(2) TEU to achieve the EU’s accession to the Convention, the Commission considers itself still empowered by the Council decision of June 2010 to continue negotiations in due course with the Council of Europe. But the political reaction is muted: some EU member states would like to knock the matter into the long grass; and the European Parliament has not yet found its voice. In truth, nobody can relish the thought of re-opening negotiations at this juncture on the Draft Accession Agreement (DAA) with either Russia or Turkey, both of whose leaders appear to have abandoned the democratic rule of law and turned against Western values.

Yet the Court of Justice (CJEU) raises important issues which the other institutions cannot simply ignore. Its Opinion adds to the already fairly improbable conditions which the Treaties themselves attach to the EU’s accession to the ECHR: Protocol No 8 says that accession shall not affect the ‘specific characteristics of the Union and Union law’, that the competences of the EU and the powers of its institutions shall be preserved, that the situation of member states vis-à-vis the ECHR should not be changed, and further, that no intra-EU dispute should go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Article 52 of the Charter says that where its provisions correspond to the ECHR their ‘meaning and scope … shall be the same’; while Article 53 denies that the Charter restricts or adversely affects rights ‘as recognised, in their respective fields of application, by Union law and international law’ – notably the ECHR. Whereas Articles 53 (coincidentally) of both the ECHR and the Charter allow their signatories to offer more extensive protection than the Convention, the CJEU has been anxious to insist that after accession the EU member states should not seek to outpace or undermine the ‘primacy, unity and effectiveness’ of Union law.

Read it again Continue reading “EU Accession to the ECHR: What to Do Next”

A Constitutional Defense of CJEU Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR (and the way forward)

Original published on VERFASSUNGSblog

by Daniel Halberstam

The Court of Justice of the European Union has arrived! Gone are the days of hagiography, when in the eyes of the academy the Court could do no wrong. The judicial darling, if there is one today, is Strasbourg not Luxembourg. Only hours after Opinion 2/13 struck down the Draft Agreement (“DA”) on EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), scholars condemned the opinion as “exceptionally poor.” Critical voices mounted ever since, leading to nothing short of widespread “outrage.”

.
I disagree with the critics. In an article, “‘It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!’ A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and a Way Forward” forthcoming in the German Law Journal, I provide the first comprehensive legal analysis and constitutional reconstruction explaining why the Court’s concerns are mostly warranted. I also identify the changes that must be – and reasonably can be – made to move accession forward. Finally, and in a twist of irony, I show that one of the Court’s greatest concerns – mutual trust – goes to the very survival of the Union and demands not an exemption, but full accession.

My defense is not a nostalgic plea for a return to gentler days. To the contrary, as a critic on record of both the CJEU[1] and the Bundesverfassungsgericht,[2] I have little patience for judicial hagiography. No court is an entirely innocent actor. Opinion 2/13’s abrasive and uncompromising style, to which the title of my article alludes, suggests Strasbourg is not welcome in Luxembourg. Wary of its younger overburdened sibling, the CJEU seems intent on guarding its privileged judicial position in Europe.

And yet, dismissing the Court as selfish would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The bracing exchange of pluralism, which I support, lacks value (and values) if constitutionalism is not part of the mix. The internal constitutional perspective of actors considering external legal claims does not undermine pluralism. To the contrary, constitutionalism provides legitimacy to the exercise of public power. As a result, constitutionalism supplies the terms on which the pluralist contestation takes place. As I have argued repeatedly elsewhere, constitutionalism supplies the grammar of legitimacy that governs the pluralist contest by insisting that power always vindicate a combination of voice, rights, and expertise. We must, therefore, never forget the role that constitutionalism plays in a pluralist constellation.

But the current critics did just that: they rushed to embrace Strasbourg while forgetting about the constitutional dimension of EU governance along the way. A singular focus on international human rights regimes, however, can be misleading. On the Verfassungsblog, for instance, the President of the CJEU has been quoted as saying: “The Court is not a human rights court. It is the Supreme Court of the European Union.” Critics interpret this to indicate the CJEU is not taking rights seriously. The argument echoes a rather old debate,[3] recently renewed by suspicions about the Court’s bona fides regarding labor rights after Viking andLaval[4] and asylum rights after M.S.S. and Abdullahi.

Rights lapses at the Court must be condemned, but there is nevertheless a good deal of respectable truth to the President’s internal perspective. The CJEU has come around (even if only after a prolonged pluralist struggle with Member State high courts) to protect rights as an essential feature of the legality and legitimacy of EU law. Today, the EU is firmly committed to protecting fundamental rights, which may include participation in international human rights regimes – as well it should. But such participation should not undermine the constitutional nature of the EU’s legal order, which is geared to vindicating all three constitutional values. The EU may sign on to the ECHR as an extension, but not substitution, of its own project of constitutional governance.

The EU’s constitutional engagement with the world, then, leaves ample space for hard pluralist contestation. But we must first understand the “constitutional” element of the EU’s side of the contest. It is in this spirit that I reconstruct the Court’s objections to the Draft Agreement.

My main concern, then, is not for the reputation of the Court, but for a sensible project of accession that gives due consideration to the constitutional quality of the Union. In the remaining space, I cannot summarize the Opinion, the issues, let alone my article. I can give only a quick sense of some conclusions that follow from my plural constitutionalist approach. Continue reading “A Constitutional Defense of CJEU Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR (and the way forward)”

WHEN SUPER-REGULATORS FIGHT: THE ‘ONE-STOP SHOP’ IN THE PROPOSED DATA PROTECTION REGULATION

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

A guilty pleasure for fans of superhero comic books is the moment when our heroes pause in their valiant efforts to save the public from the nefarious plans of the supervillains – and start beating the hell out of each other instead. This is usually triggered by some trivial difference of opinion, perhaps concerning a continuity error or intellectual property rights.
Similarly, the EU vests its hopes for the effective enforcement of data protection law upon national data protection authorities (DPAs): the superheroes of the data protection world. They have considerable powers under the current data protection Directive, and the proposed Regulation would also give them more powers. But what if they disagree with each other? There’s nothing in the current legislation to settle this problem, which gives each DPA the power to regulate actions on its own territory without addressing the obvious complications that result in a digital age, when many forms of processing of personal data (most obviously via the Internet) take place across borders.

To deal with this problem, the Commission proposal contains a conflict rule to determine who is the lead regulator in cross-border cases, with the possibility that a ‘European Data Protection Board’ or the Commission itself can issue an opinion on the issue. This has been dubbed the ‘one-stop shop’ rule. However, due to legal concerns, both the Council (which is about to adopt its position on this part of the proposed Regulation: see the draft texthere), and the European Parliament (EP), which has already adopted its position on the entire text, propose instead that the Board must be able to make binding decisions to settle disputes.

So this is set to become one of the most significant innovations of the new legislation. Let’s take a look at what the future rules will likely say about the role of national DPAs, the one-stop-shop process and the powers of the Board.

National data protection authorities

The current Directive already provides for the existence of DPAs, and insists that they must exercise their powers in ‘complete independence’. CJEU case law (discussed here) has set out a very strong interpretation of this notion, ruling that Germany, Austria and Hungary breached it, because they provided for too much accountability to national parliaments (Germany), failed to separate the DPA from the ordinary civil service (Austria) and defenestrated the DPA boss before his normal term of office expired (Hungary).

The proposed Regulation would retain and elaborate upon this concept, and the Council and EP agree with most of the Commission’s suggestions. Admittedly, the DPAs have to be appointed by public authorities in the first place: after all, their powers don’t stem from being bitten by a radioactive spider, or orphaned in a bat-infested back alley. The Council would amend the proposal so that they don’t have to be appointed by the government or parliament, but could instead be appointed by the head of state or independent body. Only the last alternative would fully ensure their independence from the outset (although who appoints the ‘independent body’?)

Three points of concern here. First, the proposal would usefully require the national DPAs to be adequately funded. That is easier said than done, for most DPAs complain of an absence of sufficient funding. For instance, the Irish DPA occupies a small office next to a corner shop – but purports to regulate (among many other things) all of Facebook’s activities in the EU. Secondly, the Council would remove the proposed rule requiring that DPAs be independent ‘beyond doubt’ when they are appointed; but DPAs should not be a resting ground for political hacks and bagmen. Thirdly, the Council would remove most of the details concerning the loss of office of DPAs, retaining only the minimum rule of four years in office. As the termination of the Hungarian DPA showed, it’s hard to exercise your powers independently if you constantly fear that there may be Kryptonite in your coffee.

As for the powers of the DPAs, the Regulation would strengthen and elaborate upon their current advisory and enforcement roles. In particular, the current powers to investigate, intervene and engage in legal proceedings would be fleshed out, by adding powers concerning audits, access to the premises of the controller and processor, ordering compliance with a data subject’s request, the suspension of data flows, or the imposition of fines.

But with these great powers will come only limited accountability. DPAs will have to publish an annual public report (and the EP even wants to weaken this obligation). But that’s the only way that their decisions can be controlled, unless a cross-border complication means that other DPAs, or the European Data Protection Board (a sort of uber-DPA) gain jurisdiction, as discussed below. Otherwise, the only bodies which can watch these watchmen are the courts. Continue reading “WHEN SUPER-REGULATORS FIGHT: THE ‘ONE-STOP SHOP’ IN THE PROPOSED DATA PROTECTION REGULATION”

BASIC DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN THE PROPOSED DATA PROTECTION REGULATION: BACK TO THE FUTURE?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED TODAY ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

Monday, 9 March 2015

by Steve Peers

So far, 2015 is not like the Back to the Future movies promised it would be like. In particular, there are no hoverboards (drones are a poor substitute). Moreover, instead of agreeing a data protection framework fully fit for 2015, the Council is probably about to agree that the key principles of the law should remain as they were in 1995 – which might as well be 1985 (or even 1955) in terms of technology law.

Background

The negotiations on the EU’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation finally seem to be nearing the final stretch, as far as the Council is concerned. Member States’ ministers in the Council seem likely to agree later this week on two more parts of the proposed Regulation: on basic principles of data protection (text here) and on supervisory authorities, including the idea of a ‘one-stop shop’ for data protection supervision (text here).

Previously they had agreed on three other parts of the Regulation, namely rules on: territorial scope and external relations (see discussion here); public-interest exceptions (see here); and the roles of data controllers and processors (see here; see particularly the discussion of the ‘privacy seals’ rules here). (For full consolidated text of everything the Council has agreed to date, see here). If the proposed texts on principles and data protection authorities are indeed agreed this week, the Council mainly only has to agree on the scope and definitions in the Regulation, along with the rights of data subjects, such as the right to be forgotten (see discussion of the proposed text on that issue here), and related individual remedies.

This blog (EU LAW ANALYSIS) post focusses on the issue of basic data protection principles. The Commission’s proposal suggested some fairly modest changes to these basic rules as compared to the current data protection Directive, although the European Parliament (EP) would like to go further than the Commission (see its position here). However, the Council’s position would entail very modest changes indeed to the status quo. For this aspect of data protection law, if the Council has its way, the EU’s lengthy legislative reform journey would end up much where it originally started.

Details Continue reading “BASIC DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES IN THE PROPOSED DATA PROTECTION REGULATION: BACK TO THE FUTURE?”

European and national parliamentarians divided on the EU “Smart Borders Package” ?

By FERN BOWLES (Free Group Trainee)

On February 23 the LIBE Committee has organized a interparliamentary meeting focused on the Smart Borders Package (see “EU Compass” factsheet here). The meeting served as a forum for the exchange of views between European and national parliamentarians, as well as the Commission and European agency representatives, in an aim to debate the possible future alternatives at technological and legal level of the “smart border package”. According to the Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos this “new start” is justified to overcome various “technical, political and cost related issues” raised by the initial Commission proposal. In October 2014, the first stage of the new Commission analysis was completed with the delivery of the Technical Study (see the executive summary ) and Costs Study. The “Pilot” will be completed during 2015 and a new legislative package could then be submitted in 2016.

The context

At the moment, manual checks are performed by border force personnel at the external frontiers where they are required to check non-EU citizens’ travel documents. The Smart Borders project plans to create a pan-Schengen automated database to be able to store information of third country nationals (TCN) electronically. Thorough an entry-exit system (EES) TCNs would be required to undergo a biometric identification check upon arrival to the EU, while the registered travellers programme (RTP) will pre-vet non-EU citizens before their travel, in order to speed up border crossing.

The justification for increased checks on non-EU citizens with the Entry-Exit System (EES) was initially to fight terrorist’ travel but it is argued that the real reason is to prevent the phenomenon of ‘overstayers’ (TCN that stay in the EU longer than they are permitted), which according to the Commission is one of the biggest issues of irregular migration within the EU. The European Commission’s original proposal (2013) for a Regulation on the Smart Borders Package will however be revised and revealed at the beginning of 2016.

The main issues that were raised during the debate… Continue reading “European and national parliamentarians divided on the EU “Smart Borders Package” ?”

The Iraq war and EU asylum law: the CJEU’s answers are blowin’ in the wind

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE

by Steve Peers

Nearly twelve years since the conflict began, the Iraq war is still controversial, with many believing that Tony Blair and George W. Bush launched an ‘illegal war’. For these critics, the only satisfying result would be the trial of Bush and Blair on war crimes charges. I think this will happen one day – on the condition that the jury consists of flying pigs. (Perhaps they flew off with the mythical weapons of mass destruction).

For now, then, in light of the mysterious death of a scientist and the dubious delay in a planned investigation of the war, critics of the conflict have to litigate these issues indirectly. There is a link to EU law here – as set out in February 26, Shepherd judgment of the CJEU. Unfortunately that judgment is highly problematic, not because the Court avoids the key issue of the war’s legality, but because of its unconvincing interpretation of some key issues concerning the status of deserters in EU asylum law.

Background

The Geneva Convention on refugee status defines a refugee as a person outside his or her country of origin, who is unwilling or unable to return to that country due to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. But it excludes refugee status from those who have committed particularly heinous acts, including war crimes.

These rules are set out again, and further elaborated, in the EU’s Qualification Directive. In particular, there is a further definition of the concept of ‘persecution’, which (among other things) includes legal or policing measures, or prosecution or punishment, which is ‘disproportionate or discriminatory’ (the ‘unfair punishment’ rule), and ‘prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict’, if ‘performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses’ (the ‘military service’ provision).

The Shepherd case concerns an American soldier who developed doubts about the legitimacy of the Iraq war. Although he was not in combat, but rather carried out maintenance work on helicopters, he feared that he was contributing to the commission of war crimes. So he deserted from the US army, but expected that he would be prosecuted in the USA as a result. To avoid this, he applied for asylum in Germany, and the German courts sent questions to the CJEU to clarify the interpretation of the Qualification Directive.

Judgment

The Court began by confirming that it would only interpret the rules in the Directive on the concept of persecution, although the Advocate-General’s opinion had also examined the rules on the grounds of persecution and exclusion. As a result, the Court’s judgment says nothing (for instance) about the definition of ‘war crimes’.

Next, the Court made four main points about the interpretation of the ‘military service’ provision. First of all, the definition of ‘military service’ included support staff, and the circumstances surrounding enlistment in the military were irrelevant. Implicitly it doesn’t matter whether the soldier was conscripted or volunteered. However, the Court stated that being part of the military was a ‘necessary but not sufficient’ condition for the rule to apply.

Secondly, the Court elaborated upon the conditions for applying the provision, setting out four elements to be considered: there must be a relationship with an actual conflict; the rule can apply even to indirect participation in a conflict, if the soldier’s tasks could ‘sufficiently directly and reasonably plausibly, lead them to participate in war crimes’ (the possibility of prosecution before the International Criminal Court being irrelevant); there must be a likelihood of war crimes being committed in future (again, the possible role of the International Criminal Court is irrelevant); and the past conduct of the unit is not an automatic indicator that war crimes will be committed in future. Overall, the test is whether ‘there is a body of evidence which alone is capable of establishing’ whether it is ‘credible’ that war crimes will be committed.

Thirdly, the Court examined the context of the conflict in question, addressing three issues. If there was a Security Council resolution authorising the conflict, there was ‘in principle, every guarantee’ that war crimes will not be committed, although this was not an absolute rule. This also applied to an ‘operation which gives rise to an international consensus’. And if national law of the country of origin provided for the ‘possibility’ of prosecution of war crimes, then it was ‘implausible’ that such crimes will be committed. Overall, the asylum-seeker has to show that there is ‘sufficient plausibility’ that his unit is ‘highly likely’ to commit war crimes.

Fourthly, the Court looked at the soldier’s individual circumstances. Desertion has to be the only way in which he could avoid participation in war crimes, and the Court pointed out that Mr. Shepherd had enlisted and then re-enlisted in the US armed forces.

Finally, the Court interpreted the ‘the ‘unfair punishment’ rule. The starting point was that Member States are entitled to maintain an armed force, including by means of punishing soldiers who desert. A penalty of up to five years in prison was not disproportionate, in the CJEU’s view. Nor was Mr. Shepherd’s punishment discriminatory, since there was no comparator for him. And the social ostracism that might result from his desertion was legally irrelevant, since it was only a consequence of the punishment.

Comments

Let’s begin with the parts of the judgment which are fairly convincing. The Court’s definition of ‘military service’ makes sense in light of the wording of the Directive, as does its interpretation of the conditions for applying this provision.

Unfortunately, the majority of the Court’s reasoning is not as persuasive. As regards the ‘unfair punishment’ rule, the Court should have made clearer why a lengthy prison sentence is acceptable for a deserter, but not (according to prior case law) an LGBTI refugee. (The obvious answer is that an expression of human sexuality is prima facie an exercise of the human right to a private life). On discrimination, the Court’s failure to find a comparator stems from its unwillingness to look at the grounds of persecution: obviously Mr. Shepherd could claim discrimination as compared to persons in other social groups or holding other political opinions. And as for social ostracism, the Court simply asserts that such ostracism cannot be severed from the punishment for desertion. But this is not necessarily correct. However, it should be noted that the judgment leaves open the possibility that social ostracism can exist in the absence of official punishment in another case.

The Court’s reasoning on the context of military conflict is quite implausible. Why should the mere existence of a Security Council resolution amount to a ‘guarantee’ that war crimes will not be committed? In any event, this begs the enormous question as to whether the Iraq war was indeed authorised by such a resolution. This line of reasoning is inconsistent with the Court’s ruling in the Kadi line of cases that the mere existence of a Security Council process was insufficient to guarantee human rights. Many people start out as naive idealists about international law, but end up as disappointed cynics; the Court seems to have undertaken this journey the other way around.

The idea that an ‘international consensus’ could lead to the same result is baffling. Unlike a Security Council resolution, which is clearly a real thing (leaving aside the question of how to interpret one), there is no reference to ‘international consensus’ in the Directive, and the Court makes no suggestion that such a concept exists in international law. How would it even be defined? The State being invaded clearly does not participate in such a ‘consensus’, and if there were such widespread international agreement, why would it not have resulted in a Security Council resolution anyway? The only plausible explanation for this part of the judgment is that Tony Blair hacked into the Court’s computer system, integrating his beliefs about liberal intervention into the heart of EU law. Let’s hope he didn’t charge the Court his usual fee.

Nor is it convincing that the ‘possibility’ of national prosecution for war crimes is sufficient. If it were, why has the international community spent decades building an international criminal court system? The Advocate-General’s opinion gives several examples (such as My Lai) where such a possibility was clearly insufficient.

Finally, as regards the soldier’s individual circumstances, the Court failed to consider the possibility that the conduct of the war changes, that facts about war crimes come to light, or that the solider simply changes his mind. The latter possibility is clearly relevant, since public opinion hardened against the Iraq war as it went on, and the Advocate-General spells out how Mr. Shepherd came to change his own mind. But the final word on this point should go to Bob Dylan:

Yes, how many times can a man turn his head Pretending he just doesn’t see?

Yes, how many ears must one man have Before he can hear people cry?

Yes, how many deaths will it take till he knows That too many people have died?

The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

OPINION 2/13 ON EU ACCESSION TO THE ECHR: LOOKING FOR THE SILVER LINING

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

Monday, 16 February 2015

by Catherine Barnard, Trinity College, Cambridge

Introduction

Opinion 2/13 is a judgment for lawyers, not politicians, albeit one with major political ramifications. It engages in a detailed legal analysis of the relevant provisions of the Draft Accession Agreement (DAA), as well as key principles of EU law. This does not always make it an easy read. Others have helpfully explained the Opinion (see the Editorial comments in (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 1); a number have been have been highly critical of it (eg Douglas-Scott, Peers, Lock). I want to see whether it is possible to adopt a more positive reading of the Opinion. My remarks focus on three points:

Was there a failure to see the wood for the trees in the negotiations?

Was Opinion 2/13 really a case of judicial vanity?

What are the effects of Opinion 2/13 on relations between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights?

Was there a failure to see the wood for the trees in the negotiations?

The submissions of the Member States and the AG’s Opinion focused on the content of the Draft Accession Agreement: are the various clauses of the agreement compatible with EU law? But I think the Court felt that the focus on the nuts and bolts of the DAA meant that the negotiators failed to look at the bigger picture, namely (1) that the EU is not a state; and (2) that EU law has special characteristics (the language of Article 1 of Protocol 8[1]) which had not been sufficiently accommodated by the DAA.

In other words, the DAA focused on the state of the soft furnishings of the house – the carpets and curtains – rather than on the structural soundness of the entire edifice. But the Court was much more concerned with the edifice rather than the soft furnishings. This is why it devoted a substantial part of its Opinion (paragraphs 153-177) to identifying the ‘specific characteristics’ of EU law which it thought risked being undermined by accession to the ECHR. It identified these specific characteristics as supremacy, direct effect, conferral of powers, institutional structure[2], as well as the principle of mutual trust[3]and fundamental rights (why so far down the list?).[4] The Court also emphasised the importance of the autonomy of EU law – that is its autonomy from both the laws of the Member States and international law.[5] The Court said that the autonomy of EU law, together with its specific characteristics, were preserved by the judicial system intended to ensure consistency and uniformity in the interpretation of EU law.[6] And the key to this system is the Article 267 TFEU preliminary reference procedure.[7] It was against this backcloth, said the Court, that the DAA had to be considered.

Having set out its stall, the Court was, I think, trying to indicate that anything in – or about – the Accession agreement which jeopardised this core contravened EU law. Putting it another way, the discussion in paragraphs 153-177 was not put there simply to teach EU lawyers to suck EU eggs; these paragraphs are integral to the logic that followed. They provided the context for the Court to consider not just the points raised by the Member States in their submissions but also the bigger constitutional picture.

This broader constitutional context also helps to explain the focus on the three substantive issues: Article 53, mutual trust and Protocol No. 16 which had featured little in the submissions and the AG’s Opinion. At first sight, it is particularly surprising that Protocol No. 16 was considered at all. It allows national courts of last resort of states signed up to the Protocol to make ‘references’ to the European Court of Human Rights for an interpretation of the Convention.[8] It was concluded after the DAA had been agreed and it has not yet been brought into force. Yet the mere existence of Protocol 16 gave the Court the opportunity to express its views on the centrality of Article 267 TFEU to the EU system and how the reference procedure might be undermined.

In other words, for the Court, the EU’s team negotiating the DAA had failed to consider this important constitutional ‘wood’, focusing too much on the ‘trees’. Addressing the concerns about the potential infringement of Article 267 TFEU, together with the issues raised about Article 53 TFEU, the principle of mutual trust and Protocol No 16, was essential before accession could take place.

Was Opinion 2/13 a case of judicial vanity?

Critics of Opinion 2/13 argue that the Court of Justice was determined to protect its supremacy at all costs. Despite the fact that all intervening Member States, the AG (with reservations), and the Presidents’ joint communication indicated support for the DAA, the Court cussedly did the opposite. Even if this narrative is correct (which I doubt – see below), I actually think there would be some justification for the Court refusing to surrender itself so absolutely to the control of a ‘higher’ court. Compared to the US Supreme Court, it is still a teenager as a court. It continues to deal with threats to its supremacy from the Constitutional Courts of the Member States. It has, more or less, successfully held off those challenges. It certainly saw off a challenge to its supremacy from the power of the UN in Kadi I.[9] There, its identification of the autonomy of EU law was largely welcomed: David was seeing off Goliath. The situation is different now. The CJEU has now assumed Goliath-like proportions. Autonomy may now be mistaken for hubris, arrogance, disdain for its sister court. However, to the Court of Justice, subordination to a ‘higher’ court might suggest the Court is not invincible. It has always been very sensitive to this possibility.

However, I am not sure that the narrative of judicial vanity is correct. After all the Court does expressly concede that EU law – and the Court of Justice – are subjecting themselves to external review.[10] It points out that:

It is admittedly inherent in the very concept of external control that, on the one hand, the interpretation of the ECHR provided by the ECtHR would, under international law, be binding on the EU and its institutions, including the Court of Justice, and that, on the other, the interpretation by the Court of Justice of a right recognised by the ECHR would not be binding on the control mechanisms provided for by the ECHR, particularly the ECtHR, as Article 3(6) of the draft agreement provides and as is stated in paragraph 68 of the draft explanatory report.

The Court also recognises that there is an obligation on the EU to accede to the Convention. However, I think the structure of paragraphs 160-162 is telling. The emphasis is not on the obligation to accede under Article 6(2) TEU, first sentence. Rather, the Court emphasises that accession is subject to limitations: accession must ‘not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Treaties’ (Article 6(2) TEU, second sentence), nor must it interfere with the specific characteristics of the EU (Protocol 8, protocols being of equal value to the Treaties). As the Court put it at paragraph 164:

For the purposes of that review, it must be noted that, as is apparent from paragraphs 160 to 162 above, the conditions to which accession is subject under the Treaties are intended, particularly, to ensure that accession does not affect the specific characteristics of the EU and EU law.

This is a subtle change in emphasis but an important one. Yes, Article 6(2), first sentence, suggests an absolute obligation to accede. However, when viewed through the lens of Protocol 8 and the second sentence of Article 6(2) TEU, the Treaty provided not an absolute obligation to accede but a conditional one.[11] I think this is the line the Court took.

What are the effects of the Opinion on relations with the ECtHR?

For proponents of the thesis of CJEU vanity, the effect of the Opinion on relations with the ECtHR is disastrous. The fact that the Opinion came out just before Christmas – not a bad time to bury bad news – might support the idea that the Court of Justice had something to hide.

Again, a closer look at the judgment might refute, at least in part, this allegation. First, at no point did the Court criticise the European Court of Human Rights or its case law; its ire seems to have been directed at the EU’s negotiating team.

Second, as Peers has helpfully digested, the Court has clearly identified areas for improvement. It has thus provided a drafting ‘shopping list’ for the EU’s (new?) negotiating team. Some of these items are relatively straightforward to address. Some, especially those concerning the CFSP, mutual trust,[12] Article 53 and Protocol 16, may not be. And the logistics of renegotiating the DAA in the face of a number of intransigent states both in the EU and outside, gives considerable pause for thought.

But the fact is that the Court of Justice did not close the door on EU accession to the ECHR. Leaving it ajar, yes, but not slamming the door shut completely. And the Court of Human Rights is a sensitive institution. While its first reaction might be disappointment (see thePresident’s remarks on the opening of the judicial year), judicial comity will lead the judiciary in both Courts to engage – probably privately – with each other.

Conclusions

A number of commentators have been tremendously critical of the Court’s decision. Their disappointment is understandable. There was so much hope associated with accession. The effect of Opinion 2/13 is to stymie these hopes. One reading of the Opinion is that the Court did this to deliver a body blow to the ECtHR and to (re)assert the CJEU’s own supremacy. In this case the judgment is very much a political one dressed up in lawyers’ clothing. Another reading is that the Court was focused on (re)asserting the specific features of EU law, which it felt had not been adequately recognised in the negotiation process. In this case the judgment is very much a legal one.

But there may be a silver-lining. The Court of Justice has put down a marker that it thinks that it can ‘do’ human rights. It may now have to prove this. There may be more decisions like Abdida,[13] delivered by the Grand Chamber on the same day as Opinion 2/13(discussed by Peers), where the Court adopts a pro-human rights line (sweetened by numerous references to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights). Politically this may be very important, not only to start the process of bridge building with the Court of Human Rights, but also to send out a message to its own (troublesome) constitutional courts. For what is sauce to the (CJEU) goose is also sauce for the gander of the national constitutional courts.

These remarks were first delivered to a seminar organised by CELS, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, 4 February 2015.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 9

[1] ‘The agreement relating to the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the “European Convention”) provided for in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union shall make provision for preserving the specific characteristics of the Union and Union law, in particular with regard to: (a) the specific arrangements for the Union’s possible participation in the control bodies of the European Convention;(b) the mechanisms necessary to ensure that proceedings by non-Member States and individual applications are correctly addressed to Member States and/or the Union as appropriate.’

[2] Paras. 165-6.

[3] Para. 168. See also K. Lenaerts, ‘The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’, The Fourth Annual Sir Jeremy Lever Lecture, All Souls College Oxford, 30 Jan. 2015.

[4] Para. 169.

[5] Para. 170.

[6] Para. 174.

[7] Para. 176. See also Opinion 1/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123.

[8] Art. 1 says ‘Highest courts and tribunals of a High Contracting Party, as specified in accordance with Article 10, may request the Court to give advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto.’

[9] Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461.

[10] Para. 182-5.

[11] For hints of that view, see Discussion document of the Court of Justice of the European Union on certain aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms, May 2010, paras. 4-5

[12] See further A. Kornezow, ‘The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the Light of the EU Accession to the ECHR—Is the Break-up Inevitable?’ (2012-13) 12 CYELS 227.

[13] Case C-562/13 ECLI:EU:C:2014:2453.

EU COPYRIGHT LAW: IS THE REDA REPORT A LEAP FORWARD FOR THE PARODY EXCEPTION?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

By Sabine Jacques

In mid-January, Julia Reda (Pirate Party MEP) communicated a draft of her report on the implementation of the Information Society Directive (‘InfoSoc Directive) 2001/29/EC (it’s lengthy, but a summary can be found here). Described as ‘the most progressive official EU document on copyright since the first cat picture was published on the web’, but also as being ‘surprisingly extreme’ and even being ‘inacceptable’, this report attracted widespread interest and statements of support from different digital rights organisations.

While the report rightly urges for an ever-increasing ‘internet-friendly copyright law’, the report might have gone too far in relation to parodies. Article 5.3(k) of the InfoSoc Directive currently provides the possibility for EU Member States to introduce a parody exception for the purposes of parody, pastiche and caricature to the exclusive right of reproduction in their national copyright laws (this opportunity was seized by the UK which now includes a parody exception in section 30A CDPA). This provision was interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Deckmyn case, guiding national courts in their application of the exception to particular facts (for comments on this decision see here and the AG’s opinion see here).

At 17 on page 6 of the report, Julia Reda suggests ‘that the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche should apply regardless of the purpose of the parodic use’. Without further explanations, such a broad exception raises concerns.

The parody exception is an exception to the right-holder’s exclusive right of reproduction. As such, international treaties subject it to the application of the three-step test (Berne Convention art. 9(2), TRIPS Agreement arts. 9(1) and 13; and, WCT arts. 1(4) and 10). This test requires any exceptions in national legislation to be limited to ‘certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author’. The French authorities’ response appropriately expresses concerns that a parody exception applicable outside any purpose of parody is unlikely to meet the first step of ‘certain special cases’. As this requirement means that a shapeless provision exempting broad series of uses should not be tolerable and reflects the need for legislators to reconcile opposing interests.

The exception for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche aims to provide the possibility for parodists to copy copyrighted works in limited circumstances. The current parody exception is the result of a compromise in light of the objectives underlying the exception. The issue opposes the interests of right-holders (who are entitled to be rewarded for their creation) against the interest of the users (who need to reproduce prior works to create the new work). Removing its purpose is likely to amount to a shapeless exception rebuffed by international obligations.

Yet, La Quadrature du Net interprets Julia Reda’s proposal as: ‘to admit the parody exception for non-humorous creations’. If this is her aim, this could be achieved through the current wording of the exception for the purpose of parody.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has defined ‘parody’ through its requirements in Deckmyn. At para 20, the Court notes that a parody needs: ‘to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it, and, secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery’.

The expression of humour or mockery does not exclude the expression of criticisms. By requiring the parodist to have a humorous intent, it is suggested that a broad interpretation should prevail as to include playful, homage or serious expressions (a glimpse at French case law which knows a long history of the application of the parody exception shows evidence of serious expressions and the inclusion of satire). The limit being that the expression should refrain from being prejudicial to the person of the author or his work(s). The failure to meet this requirement enables the right-holder to enforce his or her moral rights (especially the integrity right). Additionally, where an individual is defamed, this person can bring an action under defamation law.

Also, the primary justification to the introduction of a parody exception is to facilitate the exercise of one’s freedom of expression. While freedom of expression is already considered in the current InfoSoc Directive (Recital 3 reads: ‘The proposed harmonisation will help to implement the four freedoms of the internal market and relates to compliance with the fundamental principles of law and especially of property, including intellectual property, and freedom of expression and the public interest.’) and the interpretation of the parody exception in Deckmyn (at para 25), the report (recitals C and D) confirms the importance of the relationship between copyright and related rights and freedom of expression both protected under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (respectively enshrined in article 17(2) and 11).

Yet, the concerns expressed by Julia Reda concerning the likelihood of achieving harmonisation of the exceptions throughout the EU territory under the current InfoSoc Directive (at 10) are shared. Additionally, her wish to make copyright exceptions mandatory is welcomed (at 11) and would certainly contribute to the objective of harmonisation desired.

To conclude, it must be reminded that this report is merely a draft. This one will now be handed over to the Legal Affairs Committee and to the Internal Market and Culture committees. Overall, the report makes important proposals but there is still room for improvement. Against this backdrop, care must be taken regarding the details of each provision such as for the parody exception to ensure that the impact of the exception applicable outside parody uses does not disrupt the balance desired between the interests of right-holders and parodists.