Portuguese Supreme Court’s Decision n. º 268/13.2YHLSB.L1.S1 in relation to CJEU case C-683/17: portraying the empirical importance of preliminary rulings

Sandra Fernandes  (Master Student in Judicial Law, School of Law, University of Minho) 
           

On the 15th of January 2020, the Portuguese Supreme Court issued a decision concerning a dispute on copyright relating to clothing designs.

The process began in August 2013 with an action brought before a Portuguese court of first instance by G-Star Raw, against Cofemel, requesting the latter to be ordered to cease several acts constituting infringement of the former’s copyright and unfair competition. G-Star Raw further requested compensation for the harm suffered in consequence of such acts taken by Cofemel, by means of a penalty payment. Specifically, G-Star Raw argued that some designs of jeans, sweatshirts and t-shirts manufactured by Cofemel were comparable to some of their own designs in a way that violated copyright, given that those designs constituted original intellectual creations and, as such, ought to be classified and protected as ‘works of art’. This status would place G-Star Raw’s creations under protection of article 2 of Portuguese Code on Copyright and Related Rights.

Continue reading “Portuguese Supreme Court’s Decision n. º 268/13.2YHLSB.L1.S1 in relation to CJEU case C-683/17: portraying the empirical importance of preliminary rulings”

Summaries of judgments: E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness) | TAP Portugal (Death of the co-pilot)

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judge and référendaire of the CJEU (Nuno Piçarra and Sophie Perez)

 ▪

Judgment of 18 April 2023 , E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness), Case C‑699/21, EU:C:2023:295

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(3) – Article 23(4) – Surrender procedures between Member States – Grounds for non-execution – Article 4(3) TEU – Duty of sincere cooperation – Postponement of the execution of the European arrest warrant – Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment – Serious, chronic and potentially irreversible illness – Risk of serious harm to health affecting the person concerned by the European arrest warrant

Facts

On 9 September 2019, the Općinski sud u Zadru (Municipal Court, Zadar, Croatia) issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) against E.D.L., who resides in Italy, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution in Croatia.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness) | TAP Portugal (Death of the co-pilot)”

Editorial of July 2023

By Alessandra Silveira (Editor) and Maria Inês Costa (PhD candidate, School of Law, University of Minho) 

Regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI): on the civilisational choice we are all making

It is worth highlighting the role of the European Parliament (EP) in taking its stance on the negotiation of the AI Regulation, which in turn aims to regulate the development and use of AI in Europe.[1] With the EP having approved its position, European Institutions may start trilogue negotiations (the Council voted on its position on December 2022). The AI Regulation that will apply across the European Union (EU) will only enter into force if the co-legislators agree on a final wording.

The AI Regulation follows a risk-based approach, i.e., establishes obligations for those who provide and those who use AI systems, according to the level of risk that the application of the AI system entails: is the risk high, is it low, is it minimal? In other words, there is a hierarchisation of risks, and the different levels of risk will correspond to more or less regulation, more or less impositions, more or less restrictions. The EP’s position, even if introducing further safeguards (for example, on generative AI) does not deviate from the idea that the Regulation should protect citizens without jeopardising technological innovation. To this extent, systems with an unacceptable level of risk to people’s safety should be banned, and the EP extended the list of prohibited AI uses under the Commission’s original proposal. These are, for instance, systems used to classify people based on their social behaviour or personal characteristics (such as Chinese-style social control systems); emotion recognition systems in the workplace and educational establishments; predictive policing systems based on profiling or past criminal behaviour; remote and real-time biometric identification systems (such as facial recognition) in publicly accessible spaces, etc.

Continue reading “Editorial of July 2023”

The Nature Restoration Law in the European Parliament

Isabel Estrada Carvalhais (MEP | Full Member of the Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development and of the Committee of Fisheries | Member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of the Socialists and Democrats) 
           

Introduction[1]

This is not an article with academic purposes and even its modest informative and reflective intent is far from complete. Its main aim is to contribute to further information and reflection on a quite important topic presently on top of the European political agenda: the Nature Restoration Law.

I suggest we look at the European Commission’s (EC) proposal for a regulation on the restoration of nature (hereinafter referred to as the Nature Restoration Act or NRL), at the on-going negotiation process in the European Parliament (EP) with recent votes in two associated committees (the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Fisheries) and in the EP leading committee (Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety).               

Let us start from the beginning and the beginning is not in the EC proposal itself, but a bit further back, in the conclusions of the European Council of 20 June 2019, immediately after the European elections of 26 May.

The conclusions provided (and still do) a clear preview of the key priorities for action in the European political agenda, as understood by the heads of state and government of the 27 Member States. It is important here to make this reference especially in a social context where we tend to ignore (or are instrumentally led to ignore) the active role that our states and our rulers play in the design of the European project. Chapter III of the conclusions of the European Council[2] reads as follows: The European Council underlines the importance of the Climate Action Summit that the UN Secretary-General will organise in September 2019 to strengthen global climate action in order to achieve the objective of the Paris Agreement, including by pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, and welcomes the active participation of Member States and the Commission in the preparations.”

Continue reading “The Nature Restoration Law in the European Parliament”

Open data and re-use of public information – smart cities as open data ecosystems

Joana Covelo de Abreu (Editor and Key-staff member of CitDig Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence) 
           

The European Union (EU) set a wider objective until 2030: to live a digital decade, where (personal and public) data is essential to grasp a data economy, i.e., an economy capable of, by promoting the European values, enhancing its growth through data processing, making European citizens to live better. In fact, it is expected that, until 2025, the volume of produced data can achieve the amount of 175 zettabytes worldwide: along with an increase of personal data processing, there is a growing trend concerning non-personal industrial and public data in the EU which must be properly exploited.[1]

Concerning public data, it should be widely available to empower people since, by doing so, we can reach a digitally “open, fair, diversified, democratic and confident” Europe. So, if leading a data economy is to be achieved, along with structural solutions concerning i) connectivity; ii) processing and storage of data; iii) computational capacity; and iv) cybersecurity, the EU ought to be able to v) improve its governing structures on data processing; and vi) widening quality data repositories where data can be used and reused.

Continue reading “Open data and re-use of public information – smart cities as open data ecosystems”

Summaries of judgments: HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping) | Colt Technology Services and Others

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judge and référendaire of the CJEU (Nuno Piçarra and Sophie Perez)

 ▪

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023, HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping), Case C-349/21, EU:C:2023:102.

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Telecommunications sector – Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 15(1) – Restriction of the confidentiality of electronic communications – Judicial decision authorising the interception, recording and storage of telephone conversations of persons suspected of having committed a serious intentional offence – Practice whereby the decision is drawn up in accordance with a pre-drafted template text that does not contain individualised reasons – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Obligation to state reasons

Facts

In 2017, the President of the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria), based on reasoned, detailed and substantiated applications from the Spetsializirana prokuratura (Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office, Bulgaria), authorised the telephone tapping of four individuals suspected of committing serious intentional crimes. In giving reasons for his decisions, the President followed the existing national judicial practice of using a pre-drafted template designed to cover all possible cases of authorisation, that did not contain individualised reasons and which, in essence, merely stated that the requirements of the national legislation on telephone tapping, referred to in the template, had been met, as well as the length of time during which the use of special investigative methods was authorised.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping) | Colt Technology Services and Others”

Editorial of June 2023

By Joana Covelo de Abreu (Editor and Key-staff member of CitDig Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence) 

2023 EU Justice Scoreboard – how independent and efficient justice systems can strengthen the business dimension in the EU through digitalisation?

The current European Semester is devoted to sustainable economic growth, within the EU’s annual cycle of economic policy coordination. Insofar, in the 2023 annual sustainable growth survey [COM(2022) 780 final], the European Commission stressed that “[g]ood governance and respect for the rule of law, in particular independent, quality and efficient justice systems […], are key determinants of an economy that works for people” – in fact, there is a “link between effective justice systems and Member States’ business environment” since “[w]ell-functioning and fully independent justice systems can have a positive impact on investment and are key for investment protection, and therefore contribute to productivity and competitiveness”.

Published last June 8th, 2023, the EU Justice Scoreboard [COM(2023) 309 final] acts as a comparative tool to assist the EU and its Member States to understand the justice systems’ state so it can be improved “by providing objective, reliable and comparable data on a number of indicators relevant for the assessment of the efficacy, quality and independence of justice systems in all Member States”.

Continue reading “Editorial of June 2023”

New UNIO issue now online

By the Editorial Team

The Editorial Board is happy to announce that a new issue of the UNIO – EU Law Journal is now online. The 8(2) issue of UNIO includes contributions from various highly respected scholars and young academics and addresses issues such as a) the deployment of public consultations and referenda in the context specially important political issues (e.g. secession), b) ecological transition, c) tools available to the EU to combat rule of law backsliding, d) the common European asylum system, e) fostering equality and non-discrimination in the EU, and f) and the existence of legal remedies under the GDPR to challenge automated decision-making and profiling resulting in unjustified inferences about a data subject.

We hope this new issue pleases both our readers and authors and would like to remind you that we are accepting submissions at UNIO and also at our blog.

You may find UNIO’s 8(2) issue here.

The internalisation of EU law by citizens and how it operates a threat to EU democratic values

André Lima Machado (Master in European Union Law - UMINHO) 
           

1. Introductory remarks

Last May 10, the Head of State of the Portuguese Republic, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg on the occasion of the Europe Day celebrations.[1] President Marcelo – as he is affectionately called by the Portuguese – called for a stronger Europe, a Europe that leads and anticipates, rather than a Europe that follows events. He went on to explain that the Portuguese believe in the future of Europe: in a Europe that is not the Europe of Heads of State, Heads of Government, or party leaders, but rather a Europe of European women and men, because without both there is not and there never will be a strong Europe, within itself and in the world. This is the challenge – said President Marcelo – there is not much time left to anticipate it, and the millions of Europeans deserve it. 

Moreover, this is a recurring idea in President Marcelo’s speech: “Europe cannot waste time”. And why is that? Because the circumstances of integration have changed substantially. The Portuguese President began by recalling the last time he spoke to MEPs, seven years ago, at the start of his first mandate. It was another time, another world, another Europe. He listed the changes that had occurred since then, such as the pandemic, the UK’s decision to opt out, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “In another time, another world, another Europe”, people still believed in the international order, in the existing balance of power, in the advancement of human rights, in the victory of diplomacy over war. People believed in the reform of universal institutions (even if postponed) and in the European security inherited from the 20th century (even if weakened). They believed in the primacy of globalisation, multilateralism, and common causes.

Continue reading “The internalisation of EU law by citizens and how it operates a threat to EU democratic values”

Brazil’s Recent Ratification of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime

Bruno Calabrich (Public Prosecutor (Brazil) | PhD candidate at the University of Brasília (UnB).)
           

Cybercrime is a growing issue in today’s digital age, with criminals taking advantage of the interconnectedness and dependency on technology for personal and organizational activities. Cybercrime is not a new problem and has been addressed by the Council of Europe with the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime in 2001, which entered into force in 2004 after ratification by five Council member countries. This international treaty was conceived to serve as a framework for nations to coordinate and cooperate in the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of cybercrime. As highlighted in its preamble, the Convention recognizes the crucial importance of establishing common criminal law and criminal procedural law in order to facilitate “detection, investigation and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable international co-operation”.[1] Chang and Grabosky point out that “the Budapest Convention is the first and only international convention to encourage harmonization of cyber laws and regulations, and to build cooperation among nations in controlling cybercrime”.[2] In its core fundamentals, Member States commit to work together to provide quick and effective responses to cyber-attacks, exchange information on emerging threat trends and assist each other in investigating cross-border criminal activities.

Brazil, as a leading South American country in terms of technological advances and digital economy, has also recognised the importance of addressing these issues. Indeed, after a long period in which little importance was given to the topic (particularly when compared to the European tradition), Brazilian legislation has shown significant advances in several matters related to digital law, cybercrime and personal data protection in recent years. Its main normative milestones are Federal Statute No. 12.737/2012,[3] which “establishes the criminal typification of cybercrimes” – also known as the “Carolina Dieckman Act” –, Federal Statute No. 12.965/2014[4] – the Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework –, and Federal Statute No. 13.709/2018[5] – the Brazilian General Data Protection Act (“Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais”, or LGPD). In Brazilian Courts, there have also been important decisions, such as the ruling by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) on ADC (“Ação Direta de Constitucionalidade”, a declaratory lawsuit of constitutionality of federal laws or normative acts) no. 51,[6] in February 2023, which confirmed the validity of court orders issued in the interest of criminal investigations for technology companies running internet applications in Brazil, even when the requested data is stored on servers located abroad. Prior to that, in May 2020, the STF, in the judgment of ADI (“Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade”, a direct lawsuit of unconstitutionality of federal or state laws or normative acts), no. 6387 MC-Ref/DF, recognized for the first time the protection of personal data as an autonomous fundamental right, not explicitly stated, but inferred from an integrated reading of several provisions of the Brazilian Constitution.[7] This decision prepared the grounds for the enactment of Constitutional Amendment no. 115/22, in February 2022, which expressly included the protection of personal data in the wording of the Constitution among the fundamental rights and guarantees.[8]

Continue reading “Brazil’s Recent Ratification of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime”