Month: January 2017

Brexit, The Supreme Court (UK) and the principle of loyalty: on the question of irrevocability of a withdrawal notice

On By officialblogunioIn Comments1 Comment

Supreme Court December 2016 - 01

by Alessandra Silveira, Editor
▪

Article 50, TEU is silent on several issues concerning the withdrawal of a Member State from the European Union. Such article establishes that the Member State shall notify the European Council of its withdrawal intention in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. But it does not provide for, for instance, about the hypothesis of revoking the notification of the withdrawal intention, perhaps – before the certainty of revocability – to prevent the Member States of being tempted to influence the destiny of the EU through a false threat of exit. Therefore the doubts raised by article 50, TEU will have to be solved in the light of the principles of the EU law, in special the principle of loyalty [Article 4(3), TEU]. According to this principle of friendly conduct, inherent to all known federative systems, the EU and the Member States respect and assist each other mutually in the fulfilment of the missions resulting from the Treaties.

In 24 January 2017, The Supreme Court issued its expected ruling on whether a notice withdrawing the UK from the EU Treaties can, under the UK’s constitutional arrangements, lawfully be given by Government ministers without prior authorisation by an Act of Parliament.[i] Probably to justify the absence of a reference for a preliminary ruling on the question of irrevocability of a withdrawal notice pursuant to Article 50 TEU, The Supreme Court  highlights that UK’s constitutional requirements are a matter of domestic law should be determined by UK judges. Moreover, The Supreme Court asserted that the issues in those appeals have nothing to do with political issues such as the merits of the decision to withdraw, the timetable and terms of so doing, or the details of any future relationship between the UK and the EU.

Continue reading “Brexit, The Supreme Court (UK) and the principle of loyalty: on the question of irrevocability of a withdrawal notice” →

Implications of the declaration of invalidity of the Directive 2006/24 on the retention of personal data (metadata) in the EU Member States: an approach to the judgment Tele 2 of 21 December 2016

On By officialblogunioIn Case notes1 Comment

6498637005_ab8645216a_o

by Alessandra Silveira, Editor
and Pedro Freitas, Member of CEDU
▪

In the decision Digital Rights Ireland of 2014[i], the ECJ was called upon to assess the validity of the Directive 2006/24 (on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks) in the light of Articles 7 (Respect for private and family life) and 8 (Protection of personal data) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and considered that the obligation imposed by the Directive 2006/24 on providers of electronic communications services constituted an interference with the aforementioned fundamental rights. [ii]

The issue at hand is that the directive concerned all those who used electronic communications services in Europe – even those whose conduct were not in any way linked with criminal activities.  Furthermore, while seeking to fight against serious crime, the Directive did not provide for any differentiation, limitation or exception to the retention of data of persons whose communications are subject to professional secrecy. In addition to a general absence of limits, the Directive 2006/24 did not lay down any objective criterion to limit the access of the competent national authorities to the data and its subsequent use. Furthermore, the Directive did not require that the data in question should be kept within the territory of the Union, and thus a supervision by an independent body was not fully guaranteed.

While it is true that the fight against serious crime is of prime importance in ensuring public safety and that its effectiveness may depend on the use of modern investigative techniques, such objective, be that as it may, cannot in itself justify a retention measure such as the one established by Directive 2006/24 as necessary for those purposes[iii]. By adopting Directive 2006/24, the European Union legislature had exceeded the limits imposed by the principle of proportionality in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the CFREU, and for that reason the ECJ ruled the invalidity of the directive, without reservations as to the temporal effects of its decision (ex tunc).

However, following the judgment in the Digital Rights Ireland case, the reaction of the Member States was not consensual, which led to an unlawful differentiation of treatment between European citizens. The decision of the ECJ raised the problem of the effects of that invalidity in relation to the national provisions transposing the directive. According to data released by the Portuguese Public Prosecutor’s Office, ten of the EU Member States have declared invalid the national laws that transposed the data retention directive, either by parliamentary decision or through their constitutional courts. In other Member States, including Portugal, this was not the case because the substantial requirements of the ECJ’s decision were deemed satisfied by the national legislation that transposed it. [iv]

Continue reading “Implications of the declaration of invalidity of the Directive 2006/24 on the retention of personal data (metadata) in the EU Member States: an approach to the judgment Tele 2 of 21 December 2016” →

The concept of (economic) sovereignty: the Apple/Ireland case

On By officialblogunioIn CommentsLeave a comment 
by Ana Filipa Afonseca, student of the Master´s degree in EU Law of UMinho
▪

If we know the economic policy behind the article 107.º and 108.º of TFEU we will know better ourselves as European Union. Here, the sovereinty have a modern aproach because it deals with a new reallity, witch is the heart of EU: the idea of a single, free and fair market throught the Member States. That necessarilly increases a deep discussion about the institutional and Member State’s power to take attractive measures to grow up their own economy throught tax benefits, such as the case in analysis.

But, in fact, the Member States are now new states because they are regulated by common politics emerged by a supra national organ, which did not exist: the EU itself. When we say “new States” we are not calling for a conceptual reform in the international law as the elements of the 1st article of Montevideo’s Convention remain. It must be noted that the requirement of an effective Government does not take into account the way/fashion in which state policy is implemented but, symbolically, it is important to point out that there is a new set of rules that inevitably transform the path of State economic policy in the Member States of the EU.

In this way, if every competition rule in the TFEU as well as the economic freedoms ones are important to the new economic formula, the prohibition of State aid under Article 107 and 108 has an added symbolic force: it is addressed directly to the Member States, imposing a stand still position before their peers.

Continue reading “The concept of (economic) sovereignty: the Apple/Ireland case” →

Editorial of January 2017

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment

 

board-673013_1920

by Joana Covelo de Abreu, Junior Editor
 ▪

New year’s resolutions: digital single market in 2017 – the year of interoperability

Digital Single Market is one of the major political goals for EU and its Member States since digital tools have shaped, for the past last decade, how economy behaves and how economic growth is relying on IT tools. In fact, digital economy can create growth and employment all across our continent. On the other hand, digital mechanisms cover almost every economic field, from transportation to clothes, from movies to sports since online platforms have the ability to create and shape new markets, challenging traditional ones.

The Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) is one of the initiatives under Europe 2020 Strategy and it aims to promote economic growth and social benefits by achieving the digital single market. So it is named as one of the secondary public interests that must be pursued by European administration – both national public administrations (when they apply EU law and act as European functioning administrations) and European institutions and, in that sense, especially national public administrations must feel engaged to promote this end and objective, otherwise if those are the ones to firstly resist to innovation, Internal Market adaptation to new framework standards will suffer and economic prosperity in Europe can be undermined.

Therefore, EU has created several mechanisms to foster interoperability solutions that would bring together institutions, national public administrations, companies and individuals. In this context, interoperability stands for “the ability of disparate and diverse organizations to interact towards mutually beneficial and agreed common goals, involving the sharing of information and knowledge between organizations, through the business processes they support, by means of the exchange of data between their respective ICT systems”. It demands and implies an effective interconnection between digital components where standardization has an essential role to play in increasing the interoperability of new technologies within the Digital Single Market. It aims to facilitate access to data and services in a protected and interoperable environment, promoting fair competition and data protection.

Continue reading “Editorial of January 2017” →