Category: 3. Fundamental rights – Charter

THE FRENCH “WAR ON TERROR” IN THE POST-CHARLIE HEBDO ERA

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EUCRIM EDITED BY THE MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE AND THE EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW ASSOCIATION’S FORUM (*)

by Vasiliki Chalkiadaki

I. Introduction

France’s history of terrorism is neither new nor exclusively Islamist-related. At the end of the 1970s, France experienced a wave of terrorist activity both from left-revolutionary groups, such as the Action Directe,1 and from nationalist-separatist groups, especially those active in Brittany, Corsica, and the Basque Country.2 By the early 1980s, however, France had become a target of Islamist terrorist groups and has remained so ever since, as the gunmen attack on the Paris headquarters of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on 7 January 2015 demonstrated.3

The history of contemporary French counterterrorism legislation dates back to 1986, with the law on counterterrorism of 9 September 1986. Before the latter, France dealt with terrorist attacks by means of special laws on state security that had been enacted during the Algerian wars (1954–1962), which provided for an intensive limitation of individual rights and even for a special court to deal with the relevant offences (Cour de Surete de l’Etat, “Court of State Security”)4 that was abolished only in 1982. Therefore, until 1986, no specific counterterrorism legislation existed.

Before 1986, terrorist acts were characterized as “serious violent acts threatening the integrity and the security of the state” and treated accordingly.5

This paper presents the impact that the latest terrorist attack (hereafter: the Charlie attack) has had so far on France’s counterterrorism legislation (part III). After a brief historical overview of current legislative measures (part II), the following aspects are examined as being the effects of the attack:

  • the enactment of a series of provisions, mainly in the Code of Internal Security (Code de securite interieure, hereafter: Cod. Sec. Int.);
  • the exponentially increasing number of prosecutions on the basis of already existing substantive criminal law provisions (especially the glorification of terrorism and the preparation of terrorist acts);
  • the planning of new measures and the drafting of the relevant provisions regarding the financing of terrorism to reinforce the already existing framework on terrorist financing.

  • II. Historical overview Continue reading “THE FRENCH “WAR ON TERROR” IN THE POST-CHARLIE HEBDO ERA”

The US legal system on data protection in the field of law enforcement. Safeguards, rights and remedies for EU citizens

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF STUDY FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LIBE COMMITTEE PUBLISHED HERE

by Francesca BIGNAMI (*)

In US law, there are a number of different legal sources that govern data protection in the field of federal law enforcement. This study first considers the two most important sources of data protection law^the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and the Privacy Act of 1974. It then turns to the most significant methods of information collection that are available for ordinary criminal investigations and national security investigations and the data protection guarantees set down under the laws authorizing and regulating such information collection.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government. Reasonableness is established if the search or seizure is conducted pursuant to a valid warrant, that is, a judicial order based on a showing of probable cause and on a particular description of the property to be searched and the items to be seized. Reasonableness can also be established if one of the exceptions to the warrant requirements exists. In the data protection context, however, the application of the Fourth Amendment is relatively limited because of the third-party records doctrine which holds that individuals do not have an expectation of privacy in personal data that they voluntarily turn over to third parties like financial institutions and communications providers. With regard to EU citizens, the Supreme Court has held that foreign citizens resident abroad are not covered by the Fourth Amendment.

Among U.S. laws, the Privacy Act of 1974 is the closest analogue to a European data protection law in that it seeks to regulate comprehensively personal data processing, albeit only with respect to federal government departments and agencies. It regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of all types of personal information, by all types of federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies. At a general level, the Privacy Act contains most of the elements of the EU right to personal data protection. However, it only protects US citizens and permanent residents, not EU citizens.

Furthermore, there are a number of exemptions available specifically for law enforcement agencies. As a result, the benefits of the proposed legislation on judicial redress for EU citizens are unclear. The proposed legislation contemplates three types of law suits, two of which are designed to protect the right of access to and correction of personal data, and one of which enables individuals to obtain compensation for unlawful disclosures of personal data. Since law enforcement agencies commonly exempt their data bases from the access requirements of the Privacy Act, the right of action for intentional or willful disclosures that cause actual damage is the only one that would be available on a general basis.

In investigations involving ordinary crime, there are at least three different methods of personal data collection available to law enforcement officials: (1) use of private sources like commercial data brokers; (2) court and administrative subpoenas; (3) electronic surveillance and access to electronic communications based on a court order under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. These information-gathering methods afford the same level of data protection for US and EU citizens.

With respect to EU data protection law, however, some of these methods contain relatively few data protection guarantees.

In the case of private sources of personal data, this is attributable to the absence of a comprehensive data protection scheme in the private sector and the vast quantities of personal information freely available to market actors and, consequently, also to law enforcement officials. With respect to the subpoena power and access to communications metadata and subscriber records (under the Stored Communications Act and the Pen Register Act), the lack of significant data protection guarantees is associated with the standard of “relevance” to any type of criminal investigation and the permissive application of that standard by the courts. The law and jurisprudence of “relevance,” in turn, is driven by the failure of US law to recognize a robust privacy interest in the personal data held by corporate entities and other third parties.

In investigations involving national security threats, which can involve both an intelligence and a law enforcement component, there are a number of additional means available to the government: (1) a special type of administrative subpoena known as a “national security letter”; (2) surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); (3) any other form of intelligence gathering authorized by Executive Order 12,333 (and not covered by FISA). The information gathered through such methods can be shared with criminal prosecutors if relevant for law enforcement purposes.

Foreign intelligence gathering, both inside and outside the United States, follows a two-track scheme, one for US persons and another for non-US persons. With the exception of FISA electronic and physical surveillance orders, the data protection guarantees afforded to non-US persons are minimal. The stated intent of Presidential Policy Directive 28 is to provide for stronger personal data protection for non-US persons, but it is difficult to come to any conclusions at this point in time on what effect it will have.

More generally, even with respect to US persons, personal data protection under foreign intelligence law raises a couple of questions.

The first concerns the point in time when the right to privacy is burdened by government action. The US government has suggested that in the case of bulk collection of personal data, harm to the privacy interest only occurs after the personal data is used to search, or results from a search of, the information included in the data base.

This position stands in marked contrast with EU law, where it is well established that bulk collection, even before the personal data is accessed, is a serious interference with the right to personal data protection because of the number of people and the amount of personal data involved.

The second question concerns the conditions under which personal data can be shared between intelligence and law enforcement officials. In the realm of data processing by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the European courts have emphasized that intrusive surveillance can only be conducted to combat serious threats that are carefully defined in law. They have also held that the information that results from such surveillance can only be used to combat those serious threats, whether to take national security measures or to prosecute the associated criminal offenses. In US law, by contrast, the law allows for intelligence to be transferred to the police and criminal prosecutors for any type of law enforcement purpose.

Continue reading here 

(*) Prof. at George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC, USA

Summer School on The European Area of Criminal Justice (Brussels, 29 June – 3 July 2015)

NB: This Summer School is particularly designed for practitioners in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, EU or national civil servants, as well as researchers and students interested in EU “Freedom, Security and Justice” policies.

Programme (See updated version here)

The 12th edition of the Summer School “The EU Area of Criminal Justice” will take place in Brussels from 29 June – 3  July  2015.

The objective of the Summer School is to provide participants with an extensive knowledge of EU criminal law. The classes are both theoretical and practical. They are conducted by academics, national experts or European officials who deal every day with the European criminal area.

The Summer School is specially designed for practitioners in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, EU or national civil servants as well as researchers and students interested in the EU area of freedom, security and justice.

Concerning the programme: the Summer School takes place over a week, lectures are in English, participants receive a certificate of attendance, the final examination entitles participants to receive 3 ECTS and lawyers to gain 37 points from the OBFG (Ordre des Barreaux Francophones et Germanophone de Belgique).

The Summer School covers essentially 5 topics :

  • subject I (day 1): general introduction (historical evolution, institutional issues – Schengen included, judicial control – EU accession to ECHR included);
  • subject II (day 2): cooperation between national authorities in criminal cases, covering both police cooperation and judicial co-operation. The latter will address the evolution from classic judicial cooperation (Mutual Legal Assistance instruments) to mutual recognition instruments, with special attention to the  European Arrest Warrant;
  • subject III (day 3): approximation of criminal law, in theory and practice. Thus, following a class on the approximation of substantive criminal law, the example of financial crimes will be addressed. Similarly, the theoretical course on approximation of procedural law will be complemented with the study of the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer;
  • subject IV (day 4): current and future actors of the European criminal area, particularly Eurojust, Europol and the EPPO.
  • subject V (day 5): data protection and external dimension of the EU area of criminal justice. The Summer School will end with a negotiation exercise.

Special events during the Summer School:

  • Mid-week conference : “Foreign fighters – a criminal law revolution?” 

The conference will be chaired by Hans G. Nilsson (General Secretariat of the EU Council) and will count on speeches from illustrious practitioner and professors. For details, please download the programme on the right.

The Summer School is organised by the Institute for European Studies of the Free University of Brussels (IEE-ULB) in collaboration with the European Criminal Law Academic Network (ECLAN).

THE NEW EU MIGRATION AGENDA TAKES SHAPE: ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST NEW MEASURES

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON MAY 28 ON  EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

This week the European Commission took its first steps towards implementing its new EU Migration Agenda (previously discussed here). A number of the items in the agenda have already been addressed (for instance, the military mission against smugglers on the Libyan coast, as discussed here). Others will be addressed later: a broader reform of legal migration law and changes to the rules on asylum procedures and the ‘Dublin’ rules on responsibility for asylum-seekers.

The first batch of measures contained five different elements. First of all, the Commission launched a public consultation on the reform of the existing EU law providing for a ‘Blue Card’ for the admission of highly-skilled non-EU migrants. I have commented previouslyhere on the implementation of this law and the reforms to it which should be adopted.

Secondly, the Commission released an Action Plan against migrant smuggling. This mainly elaborates upon several ideas mentioned already in the main agenda. This includes: a revision of EU anti-smuggling law, planned for 2016, to increase smugglers’ penalties and clarify humanitarian exceptions from the rules; possible new rules on immigration liaison officers in 2016; a Handbook on expulsion in 2015; a possible revision of the rules on trafficking victims, in 2016, to include ‘victims’ of smuggling; a revision of the legislation on Frontex (the EU border agency), to give it more powers relating to expulsion; changes to the rules on the Schengen Information System in 2015-16, so that all Schengen Member States’ entry bans are applicable across the Schengen area; a handbook on prevention of migrant smuggling in 2017; readmission agreements with sub-Saharan countries; and stronger enforcement of the rules prohibiting employment of irregular migrants. Most of these measures concern all irregular migrants, not just those who were smuggled to the EU.

Thirdly, the Commission adopted a Recommendation on the resettlement of refugeesdirectly from outside the EU to EU Member States. The text of this measure has not yet appeared, and so I can’t comment on it in detail. Obviously though, as a Recommendation it is non-binding, and as an act of the Commission, it does not need the approval of the Council or the European Parliament. According to the new Immigration Agenda, there will be EU funds attached to each resettled refugee, so Member States are encouraged to resettle people. It is a useful measure to ensure that a bigger number of persons are rescued without having to risk their lives or pay smugglers to cross the Mediterranean, although the overall numbers are likely to be modest.  In the event that Member States do not make use of the Recommendation to resettle refugees, the Migration Agenda promises a proposal for a binding measure, although it might be hard to find sufficient support in Council for its adoption.

Fourthly, the Commission issued guidance on the fingerprinting of asylum-seekers, as provided for in the EU’s Eurodac legislation, which sets up a database of such fingerprints in order to apply the ‘Dublin’ rules more effectively. In the Commission’s view, any irregular border-crosser who refuses to give fingerprints ought to be detained, expelled and subjected to an entry ban, in accordance with EU asylum law and the Returns Directive. Alternatively, Member States could force them to take fingerprints, with apossible exception for pregnant women and minors. Frankly, the correct application of the EU’s Dublin system is not worth the health of life of a single unborn child.

Moreover, the Commission appears to be confused about the details of the relevant legislation. It would be necessary to prove that refusal to take fingerprints ‘avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process’ to justify detention under theReturns Directive; but the purpose of the fingerprinting is mainly to apply the Dublin asylum rules, not to ‘prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process’, which is the legal basis for detention of irregular migrants under the Returns Directive. Furthermore, the rules on entry bans in that Directive make no reference to the issue of fingerprinting. As for asylum-seekers, the paper is correct to say that they can be detained in order to ‘verify their identity and/or nationality’ in the EU’s Reception ConditionsDirective. However, for asylum-seekers who have been fingerprinted already by a Member State and then apply for asylum in a second Member State, the Commission fails to mention that the Dublin rules apply. They permit detention only where there is a ‘significant risk of absconding’, which does not automatically follow from a refusal to be fingerprinted.

Fifthly, the Commission proposed a Decision on relocation of asylum-seekers between Member States. This is the only one of this week’s proposals which would (if adopted) be legally binding. Like most Commission proposals, this needs a qualified majority of Member States to support it in the Council; unlike most EU law, the European Parliament need only be consulted. It seems from press reports that there will be a ‘blocking minority’ of Member States preventing its adoption, unless some of them change their position. It’s also possible that it will be agreed, but with major changes. But for now, let’s look at what the proposal would do if adopted.

The main thrust of the proposal is to derogate from the usual ‘Dublin’ rules as regards Italy and Greece, and distribute about 40% of the asylum-seekers which would normally be the responsibility of those Member States under the Dublin rules to other Member States. Due to opt-outs, the other Member States will not include Denmark or the UK, although it seems possible that Ireland will opt in. The proposal also will not apply to the non-Member States bound by the Dublin rules (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein). It would effectively be a regime within a regime, with only 25 or 26 of the 32 Dublin States applying it.

The relocated asylum-seekers will be split 60/40 between Italy and Greece, and will be allocated to other Member States on the basis of the criteria set out in the Annexes to the proposal. Relocation will be selective, applying only to those nationalities whose applications have over a 75% success rate in applications for international protection. It’s clear from the proposal that the Commission believes that only Syrians and Eritreans will qualify. The Member State of relocation will be responsible for considering the application, and asylum-seekers and refugees will not be able to move between Member States, in accordance with the normal Dublin rules. (After five years’ residence, refugees can move between Member States, according to the EU’s long-term residence Directive).

Besides the nationality criterion, who will be relocated? Asylum-seekers must be fingerprinted in order to qualify. The selection of asylum-seekers will be made by Italy and Greece, who must give ‘priority’ to those who are considered ‘vulnerable’ as defined by the EU reception conditions Directive. This refers to a long list of people:

‘such as minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation’

Implicitly, the other Member States must accept the asylum-seekers nominated by Italy and Greece, except that they can refuse relocation if it’s ‘likely that there are national security or public order concerns’.

What about the asylum-seekers themselves? There is no requirement that they consent to their relocation or have the power to request it. The proposed Decision only requires Italy and Greece to inform and notify the asylum-seekers about the relocation, and the Commission suggests that they could only appeal against the decision if there are major human rights problems in the country to which they would be relocated. So neither the relocation itself, nor the choice of Member State that a person will be relocated to, is voluntary. This is problematic, since forcing asylum-seekers to a country that they don’t want to be in is one of the key problems facing the Dublin system already.

Of course, it’s possible that like children left in an orphanage who weren’t picked by new parents, there will be rather more asylum-seekers disappointed that they were notselected for relocation.  Do they have the right to a legal challenge? Arguably yes, to the extent that Italy and Greece select people who are not vulnerable for relocation, in light of their legal obligation to select vulnerable persons as a priority.

Asylum-seekers do have the right to insist that their core family members (spouse or partner, unmarried minor children, or parents of minors) who are already on EU territory come with them to the relocated Member State. It’s not clear if Member States could count the transfer of family members towards their overall quota. If the asylum-seekers obtain refugee status in the State of relocation, they could also apply for family reunion under the EU’s family reunion Directive.

Similarly, it’s not clear if Member States can count towards their overall quota asylum-seekers who would normally be the responsibility of Italy and Greece, but who have already found their way on to another Member State’s territory. This might be termed relocation sur place. According to the rules in the Decision, this would in any event depend upon the willingness of Italy and Greece to designate such asylum-seekers for relocation. And as the Commission notes, persons who would already be the responsibility of Greece cannot be sent back there anyway due to the collapse of the asylum system in Greece, according to the CJEU ruling in NS (the position regarding Italy is more qualified: see thediscussion of last year’s Tarakhel judgment). Of course, it is possible that the relocation of significant numbers of asylum-seekers away from Greece will contribute to solving the systemic problems with that country’s asylum system in the foreseeable future.

Overall, if the Council is willing to agree to the proposed Decision, it is likely to make a significant contribution to solving the problems with the asylum systems of some Member States, although only the more significant review of the Dublin rules promised for 2016 (or a profound improvement in the situation of countries of origin or transit) could provide a long-term solution. It is very striking that while this proposal effectively admits that the Dublin system is profoundly dysfunctional, the separate set of fingerprinting guidelines issued on the same day adopts a tone of head-banging savagery to try and get that system to work.

A final question arising is the impact of the proposed asylum measures on the UK. While the UK has an opt out, some suggest that all asylum-seekers who reach the EU could ultimately obtain EU citizenship and then move to the UK. However, the proposed Decision only relocates asylum-seekers who have already reached the EU, rather than increase the total number of asylum-seekers. Furthermore, a recent fact check suggests that only a modest number of non-EU citizens get Italian nationality each year, and that Italy only grants refugee status to a handful of people. Indeed, the only prominent Italian citizen with an African background currently in the UK is Mario Balotelli – but I don’t want to intrude into the private grief of Liverpool football fans.

OPEN LETTER TO UK MPS: ENSURING DEMOCRATIC SCRUTINY OF UK SURVEILLANCE LAW CHANGES

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS 

by Steve PEERS

Due to my concern about inadequate democratic scrutiny of changes to UK law (often linked to EU law) affecting privacy rights, I am one of the signatories to today’s letter to MPs on this issue, published in the Guardian and elsewhere. Thanks to Andrew Murray and Paul Bernal for taking this initiative.

An open letter to all members of the House of Commons,

Dear Parliamentarian,

Ensuring the Rule of Law and the democratic process is respected as UK surveillance law is revised

Actions Taken Under the Previous Government

During the past two years, the United Kingdom’s surveillance laws and policies have come under scrutiny as the increasingly expansive and intrusive powers of the state have been revealed and questioned in the media. Such introspection is healthy for any democracy. However, despite a need for transparency in all areas of lawmaking, and in particular in areas of controversy, the previous Government repeatedly resisted calls for an open and transparent assessment and critique of UK surveillance powers. Instead, in response to legal challenges, it extended the powers of the state in the guise of draft Codes of Practice and “clarifying amendments.” As we welcome a new Government we expect another round of revisions to UK surveillance laws, with the likelihood that the Queen’s Speech will signal a revival of the Communications Data Bill. At this time we call on the new Government, and the members of the House, to ensure that any changes in the law, and especially any expansions of power, are fully and transparently vetted by Parliament, and open to consultation from the public and all relevant stakeholders.

Last year, in response to the introduction of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (“DRIP”), a number of leading academics in the field – including many of the signatories to this letter – called for full and proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill to ensure Parliamentarians were not misled as to what powers it truly contained. Our concern emanated from the Home Secretary’s attempt to characterize the Bill, which substantially expanded investigatory powers, as merely a re-affirmation of the pre-existing data retention regime.[1]

Since that letter was written, it has become apparent that the introduction of the DRIP Bill was not the only time an expansion of surveillance powers was presented in a way seemingly designed to stifle robust democratic consideration. In February 2015, the Home Office published the draft Equipment Interference Code of Practice.[2] The draft Code was the first time the intelligence services openly sought specific authorisation to hack computers both within and outside the UK. Hacking is a much more intrusive form of surveillance than any previously authorised by Parliament. It also threatens the security of all internet services as the tools intelligence services use to hack can create or maintain security vulnerabilities that may be used by criminals to commit criminal acts and other governments to invade our privacy. The Government, though, sought to authorise its hacking, not through primary legislation and full Parliamentary consideration, but via a Code of Practice.

The previous Government also introduced an amendment via the Serious Crimes Act 2015, described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as a ‘clarifying amendment’.[3] The amendment effectively exempts the police and intelligence services from criminal liability for hacking. This has had an immediate impact on the ongoing litigation of several organisations who are suing the Government based in part on the law amended, the Computer Misuse Act 1990.[4]

The Way Ahead

The new Conservative Government has announced its intention to propose new surveillance powers through a resurrection of the Communications Data Bill. This will require internet and mobile phone companies to keep records of customers’ browsing activity, social media use, emails, voice calls, online gaming and text messages for a year, and to make that information available to the government and security services. We also anticipate this Parliament will see a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which currently regulates much of the Government’s surveillance powers. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has conducted an independent review of the operation and regulation of investigatory powers, with specific reference to the interception of communications and communications data. The report of that review has been submitted to the Prime Minister, but has yet to be made public: when it is made public, parliamentary scrutiny of the report and any recommendations made following it will be essential.

As the law requires that surveillance powers must be employed proportionate to any harm to privacy caused (as required by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) we believe that any expansion or change to the UK’s surveillance powers should be proposed in primary legislation and clearly and accurately described in the explanatory notes of any Bill. The Bill and its consequences must then be fully and frankly debated in Parliament. When reaching an assessment of the proportionality, of any measure that restricts rights, both our domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights place great stock on the degree and quality of Parliamentary involvement prior to any measure being adopted. If the matter ever came to before the courts one issue examined would be the nature of any “exacting review” undertaken by MPs into the necessity of extending these powers. The Government should not be permitted to surreptitiously change the law whenever it so desires, especially where such changes put our privacy and security at risk.

This letter has been prepared and signed by 35 academic researchers. We are comprised of people from both sides of this issue – those who believe that increased powers are a reasonable response to an emerging threat, and those who think them an unjustified extension of state interference. Our common goal is to see the Rule of Law applied and Parliamentary oversight reasserted. We are calling on all members of the House of Commons, new and returning, and of all political persuasions to support us in this by ensuring Parliamentary scrutiny is applied to all developments in UK surveillance laws and powers as proposed by the current Government.

Signatories

 

Andrew Murray (contact signatory) Paul Bernal (contact signatory)
Professor of LawLondon School of Economics

a.murray@lse.ac.uk

 Lecturer in Information Technology, Intellectual Property and Media Law University of East AngliaPaul.Bernal@uea.ac.uk

 
Subhajit BasuAssociate Professor
University of Leeds
 		 Sally Broughton MicovaDeputy Director LSE Media Policy Project, Department of Media and Communications
London School of Economics and Political Science
 
Abbe E.L. BrownSenior Lecturer
School of Law
University of Aberdeen
 		 Ian BrownProfessor of Information Security and Privacy
Oxford Internet Institute
Ray CorriganSenior Lecturer in Maths, Computing and Technology
Open University
 		 Angela DalyPostdoctoral Research Fellow
Swinburne Institute for Social Research
Swinburne University of Technology
Richard DanburyPostdoctoral Research Fellow Faculty of Law University of Cambridge
 		 Catherine EastonLancaster University School of Law  
Lilian EdwardsProfessor of E-Governance Strathclyde University Andres GuadamuzSenior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law University of Sussex
 
Edina HarbinjaLecturer in Law University of Hertfordshire
 		 Julia HörnleProfessor in Internet Law Queen Mary University of London
Theodore KonstadinidesSenior Lecturer in Law University of Surrey
 		 Douwe KorffProfessor of International Law London Metropolitan University
 
Mark LeiserPostgraduate Researcher Strathclyde University
 		 Orla LynskeyAssistant Professor of Law London School of Economics
 
 
 
David MeadProfessor of UK Human Rights Law UEA Law School University of East Anglia
 		 Robin MansellProfessor, Department of Media and Communication London School of Economics
 
Chris MarsdenProfessor of Law University of Sussex
 		 Steve PeersProfessor of Law University of Essex
 
Gavin PhillipsonProfessor, Law School University of Durham Julia PowelsResearcher Faculty of Law University of Cambridge
 
Andrew PuddephattExecutive Director Global Partners Digital Judith RauhoferLecturer in IT Law University of Edinburgh
 
Chris ReedProfessor of Electronic Commerce Law Queen Mary University of London
 		 Burkhard SchaferProfessor of Computational Legal Theory University of Edinburgh
 
Joseph SavirimuthuSenior Lecturer in Law University of Liverpool
 		 Andrew ScottAssociate Professor of Law London School of Economics
 
Peter SommerVisiting Professor Cyber Security Centre, De Montfort University
 		 Gavin SutterSenior Lecturer in Media Law Queen Mary University of London
 
Judith TownendDirector of the Centre for Law and Information Policy Institute of Advanced Legal Studies
University of London
 		 Asma VranakiPost-Doctoral Researcher in Cloud Computing Queen Mary University of London
 
Lorna WoodsProfessor of Law University of Essex
 

 
 
[1] http://bit.ly/1jNzlUz
[2] http://bit.ly/1yiXUZD
[3] http://bit.ly/1LfVFz3
[4] http://bit.ly/1S4RCdJ

Posted by Steve Peers at 03:18

Europe and “Whistleblowers” : still a bumpy road…

by Claire Perinaud (FREE Group trainee) The 9th and the 10th of April was organized in Paris by the University Paris X Nanterre la Défense in collaboration with the University Paris I Sorbonne a Conference on «  whistleblowers and fundamental rights »[1] which echoed a rising debate on the figure of  wistleblowers  after the numerous revelations of scandals and corruption which occurred last years, with some of them directly linked to EU institutions. In the following lines I will try to sketch a) the general framework then b) the main issues raised during the Conference

A) The general framework 

The term « whistle-blower » was created by Ralph Nader in 1970 in the context of the need to ensure the defense of citizens from lobbies. He defined « whistle blowing » as « an act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he serves, blows the whistle that the organization is in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activity »[2]. The interest of scholars and lawyers to the figure of whistle-blowers in the United States dates back to the adoption by the Congress in 1863 of the False claims act which is deemed to be the first legislation related to the right of alert[3].
The system which developed afterwards is notably based on the idea that whistle-blowing is a strong mechanism to fight corruption and has to be encouraged by means of financial incentives[4]. If this mechanism is of utmost importance in the United States, protection of whistle blowers is only slowly introduced in Europe[5]. 
With numerous scandals related to systemic violations of human rights, the subject is progressively dealt with in the European Union (EU) and in the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, in both organizations, the protection of whistleblowers remain at the stage of project or only recommendations to the states.

The Council of Europe… Continue reading “Europe and “Whistleblowers” : still a bumpy road…”

(UK) IS REPEALING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT COMPATIBLE WITH EU LAW?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

The new British government has indicated that it is determined to repeal the UK’s own Human Rights Act (HRA) in the near future. There are a number of legal and political problems with this idea, which are aptly summarised (with many links to further discussion) in a new Jack of Kent blog post. But the issue of the overlap between the HRA and EU law isn’t discussed there. I blogged last year on how the Conservative party’s strategy document on this issue fit very awkwardly with the UK’s EU law obligations, but it’s a good time to update this analysis.

First of all, let’s simplify the analysis by assuming that the UK will not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), although as discussed in the prior blog post, the strategy document did raise the possibility that the UK will withdraw from that Convention if the Council of Europe raises too many objections to its plans. As I blogged previously, withdrawal from the ECHR could impact upon the UK’s EU membership, but we are not at that stage yet.

Secondly, we have not yet seen the details of the government’s proposals to repeal the HRA, but I will assume for now that they will not aim to disapply the EU’s Charter of Rights in the domestic laws of the UK. I have separately blogged on the reasons why this would be unfeasible, but let’s assume for now (until we see those proposals) that this is not the government’s intention.

The core of the government plan (if it follows the template set out in the previous strategy document) is to weaken the domestic system of human rights protection, decouple it from the ECHR system and introduce new rules which weaken substantive protection of human rights for any group of people whom the government deems to be sufficiently despicable (for more details, see my critique of the plan here). How does that relate to EU law? Continue reading “(UK) IS REPEALING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT COMPATIBLE WITH EU LAW?”

A.T. V LUXEMBOURG: THE START OF THE EU-ECHR STORY ON CRIMINAL DEFENCE RIGHTS

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Alex Tinsley, (*)

(*) Legal & Policy Officer (Head of EU Office) at Fair Trials, based in Brussels. Twitter: @AlexLouisT

On 9 April 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) gave judgment in A.T. v Luxembourg. The judgment, which will become final unless referred to the Grand Chamber, in finding a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), develops the principles established in the Salduz v Turkey. At the invitation of Fair Trials International, third party intervener, it also takes into account, for the first time, Directive 2013/48/EU on access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings (the ‘Access to a Lawyer Directive’), a possible indicator of future convergence in this area.

Background

The applicant, A.T. was questioned by police following surrender under a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) (as to the cross-border aspect, see the post-script). On arrival, he demanded a lawyer. Police gave information (it is unclear what) which led him to accept to be questioned without one. He denied the offences. He was then questioned again before the investigating judge, with a lawyer present but (a) without having had the chance to talk with that lawyer beforehand and (b) without the lawyer having had sight of the case file prior to that questioning; again, he denied the offences.

A.T. argued that his defence rights had been breached as he had been denied access to a lawyer. The appeal court, and then the Court of Cassation, rejected this, essentially finding that he had agreed to be questioned without a lawyer and that no obligation arose to remedy any prejudice caused. With local remedies exhausted, A.T. applied to the ECtHR arguing a violation of Article 6 ECHR.

The legal territory: the Salduz principle Continue reading “A.T. V LUXEMBOURG: THE START OF THE EU-ECHR STORY ON CRIMINAL DEFENCE RIGHTS”

EU Asylum Policy: In Search of Solidarity and Access to Protection

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON Migration Policy Centre, EUI

by Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi and Philippe De Bruycker,

1.State of play

Growing numbers of the forcibly displaced

Numerous crises and conflicts worldwide have forced more people from their homes, in the last years and months, than at any time in the last two decades1. The Syrian conflict has, for example, triggered the world’s largest humanitarian crisis since World War II, leading 3.9 million refugees to flee and leaving an estimated 12.2 million persons in need of humanitarian assistance inside Syria2. At the same time, significant numbers have had to flee other countries including Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea in order to seek asylum3.

The vast majority of those forcibly displaced outside their country of origin or residence remain in neighboring countries. The Syrian crisis is a telling example in this respect. Countries bordering Syria are coming close to saturation, particularly Lebanon, which hosts the largest per capita refugee population in the world with almost 1.2 million Syria refugees4. It has to be remembered that the Syrian refugee crisis comes just after the Iraqi refugee crisis of 2006-2009, which had displaced around two million Iraqi citizens towards the very same countries: Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt5.

It is against this backdrop that the relative rise in asylum applications to the EU28 and the EU’s advancement in the creation of a common asylum system, as well as its role as a global protection actor should be assessed.

Is a Common European Asylum System in place?

The incremental development of a CEAS has been agreed since the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere conclusions of 19997. The first stage of development revolved around efforts at legal harmonization on the basis of shared minimum standards. However, a common asylum procedure and a uniform status valid throughout the EU were seen as the end objective. It became apparent that legal harmonization alone would not be enough to bring about this result. Therefore, the development of other elements, and most notably, practical cooperation and enhanced solidarity came up.

It was gradually recognized that there were a number of advantages in joining forces in the asylum area. There was, of course, the rather ‘inward-focused’ motivation of establishing a common asylum system in order to limit secondary movements of protection seekers that had reached EU territory. But there were, also, more ‘outward looking goals’. Notably, these were: coordinating action in order to have a strategic impact externally; collaborating with third countries in the management of migration flows; and, less prominently, boosting the possibilities of legal access to the EU for international protection seekers.

Examined macroscopically, the CEAS is an advanced regional protection framework, both legislatively and policy-wise, that has the potential to influence the international refugee protection regime. Member States have sought to devise concrete mechanisms to allocate responsibility and they have elaborated detailed norms in areas that are not covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention, such as asylum procedures. They possess an institution, the Court of Justice of the EU, which is tasked with authoritatively interpreting the common norms, in an area where there is no ‘international refugee Court’. They have managed to move from ad-hoc support and exchanges of good practice to the institutionalization of practical cooperation efforts, by creating an EU agency. Finally, they have begun to coordinate their actions externally in an effort to manage, as much as possible, migration flows and to build protection capacity in third countries.

Nevertheless, the EU’s asylum system is riddled with problems that hold back its development. First of all, the responsibility-allocation mechanism that has been devised fails to share responsibility equitably between the Member States; it also largely disregards the realities faced by protection seekers and their preferences. More broadly, no objective discussion of what is a fair share of responsibility has ever taken place. This creates disincentives: on the one hand, for Member States to respect the obligations they have undertaken legislatively and, on the other, for protection seekers to abide by the rules, which do not take into account their links to specific Member States. Beyond the legislative and policy framework, the differentiated level of economic development between Member States, the discrepancies in their social assistance systems and the varying levels of investment in their asylum processing and reception systems, have led to widely diverging recognition rates and reception conditions. This has undercut the objective of curbing secondary movements between Member States; on the contrary it has fuelled them.

Finally, the EU’s external asylum dimension remains underdeveloped and is disproportionately focused on capacity building, while offering meagre opportunities for legal entry to protection seekers. On the contrary, the various measures the EU has taken as part of its external border control or visa policies have stifled access to protection and have led asylum seekers to risk their lives in order to reach EU territory. The impact of these policy choices is witnessed most vividly in the loss of life in the waters of the Mediterranean. Mediterranean crossings are not new; however, there an ever-increasing number of deaths in conjunction with a record number of migrant crossings8.

  1. Why is reform still necessary?

    2. Continue reading “EU Asylum Policy: In Search of Solidarity and Access to Protection”

THE COMMISSION’S NEW EU MIGRATION STRATEGY: WAITING FOR THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve PEERS

Today this Commission releases its EU immigration strategy. The final text is not available yet, but here are my thoughts on the earlier version, leaked on Monday. I will update them if the final strategy differs significantly from the leaked draft.

Content

The migration strategy is divided into three parts. First of all, it sets out ‘immediate action’ to address the migrant death crisis. Secondly, it describes an agenda for immigration management in four areas: irregular immigration, border management, asylum and legal migration. Finally, it briefly sets out some long-term objectives.

Immediate action

The ‘immediate action’ section largely elaborates upon the strategy already defined by EU leaders in response to the deaths in the Mediterranean. As I discussed already, this is a modest response to the crisis, focussed mainly upon enlarging EU interception operations in the Mediterranean and destroying smugglers’ boats.

However, the Commission paper suggests more ambition in two areas. First, it wants to go further on the ‘relocation’ of asylum-seekers between Member States. This would mean that frontline states like Italy and Malta do not have to deal with so many asylum-seekers, which would normally be their responsibility under the EU’s Dublin rules on this issue. So on this issue, the Commission will propose by the end of May ‘emergency response’ legislation on the basis of Article 78(3) of the TFEU, which will allocate asylum-seekers coming as part of a mass influx between Member States. These laws will be subject to a qualified majority vote in the Council, but the European Parliament (EP) will only be consulted. The Commission will then follow that up with a proposal by the end of 2015 for a permanent system of relocation, on the basis of the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, ie the usual powers of the EP. I have already discussed separately the question of whether they would apply to the UK.

Secondly, the Commission wants to go further on resettlement, ie the entry of recognised refugees now in third States into the EU. On this issue, the Commission will make a Recommendation on resettlement, to be followed by a binding proposal for legislation if this proves insufficient. Extra EU funds will be made available to assist resettlement.

Irregular immigration

First of all, the Commission wants to address root causes of irregular migration, by focussing the money the EU already spends on these issues. There is no clear commitment to more spending. Next, the Commission wants to address smuggling of migrants, with an ‘Action Plan’ to be produced by the end of May. The Commission doesn’t mention this, but a review of the current EU legislation on smuggling of migrants is now underway. Also, the Commission wants to take further action to enforce the EU’s Directive on employment of irregular migrants (on the implementation of this Directive, see discussion here).

Also, the Commission wants to address the issue of return, by prioritising countries of origin for readmission treaties with the EU, providing guidelines on the application of the EU Return Directive (see here on implementation of that Directive), and giving the EU Border Agency, Frontex, the power to initiate expulsion missions. The Commission will propose legislation on the latter issue on the basis of an evaluation to be completed by the end of the year.

Border management Continue reading “THE COMMISSION’S NEW EU MIGRATION STRATEGY: WAITING FOR THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD”