Questions relating to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 April 2014 on Data Retention – Consequences of the judgment.

In order to fully respect the principle of proportionality, the EU legislature must ensure that an interference with fundamental rights is “precisely circumscribed by provisions to ensure that it is actually limited to what is strictly necessary“. If this is not the case, then the measure in question may be declared invalid by the Court as being contrary to the principle of proportionality in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter. In particular, the EU legislature must provide for “clear and precise rules” to limit the interference to what is “strictly necessary”, notably through the inclusion in the EU legislative act of “minimum safeguards” and “sufficient guarantees”.

In this respect, the DRI judgment could, in principle, have indirect consequences as regards the national measures, given that the same general legal considerations based on the Charter could be invoked to challenge the validity of the national acts too.

Following the DRI judgment, Member States run an even higher risk than before of having their legislation annulled by the national courts, in a similar way to what has already happened in a number of Member States.

Other EU acts which also fall into the same category of “general programmes of surveillance” – as envisaged in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights – will be subject to the same “strict” method of judicial review followed by the Court in the DRI judgment. […]

The same considerations will apply also in the case of international agreements under negotiation, given that the EU legislatures discretion, in external relations, to conclude international agreements, under the Treaty and in accordance with the Charter, cannot be wider than the discretion, in internal matters, to adopt EU legislation applying within the EU legal order.

Read more https://netzpolitik.org/2015/rechtsgutachten-des-juristischen-diensts-vorratsdatenspeicherung-nach-eugh-urteil-auch-in-mitgliedstaaten-angreifbar/#document

The document https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/01/07/leaked-european-parliament-long-awaited-legal-study-on-data-retention
and a short 4 pages version https://netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2014-12-22_SJ-0890-14_Legal_opinion_Cover_note.pdf

 All articles

• Polizei,
• Geheimdienste,
• Lauschangriff,
• Überwachung,
• Vorratsdatenspeicherung,

Kommentar: RE: 20150109 VDS-Gesetze in EU-Staaten angreifbar

Die VDS ist ist nicht nur juristisch tot, sie auch polizeilich so was von unnötig. Die ganze Überwacherei bringt doch scheinbar absolut nichts. Die Pariser Mörder waren bei den Amis auf der NoFly-List, die Briten hatten sie auf dem Zettel, die Franzosen kannten sie ohnehin, die Algerier haben am 06.01. sogar vor einem Terroranschlag gewarnt. Die "Dienste" haben mal wieder total versagt - und die extrem restriktiven und repressiven  Überwachungsgesetze in Frankreich inklusive VDS haben null gebracht.

Netterweise vergessen solche Täter immer ihre Ausweise, in diesem Fall im Auto, bei 9/11 sogar noch 200m gegen den Wind auf die Straße gepustet. Dadurch werden die Lücken in der elektronischen Ermittlungsarbeit wieder ausgeglichen und könnten auch eingespart werden ...

Sven, 10.01.2015 12:10

Comment

If you like a crypted answer you may copy your public key into this field. (Optional) Public Key

To prevent the use of this form by spam robots, please enter the portrayed character set in the left picture below into the right field.

CC license   European Civil Liberties Network   Bundesfreiwilligendienst   We don't store your data   World Beyond War   Use Tor router   Use HTTPS   No Java   For Transparency