Towards a common standard of protection of the right to housing in Europe through the charter of fundamental rights

The trend towards the financialisation of housing since the 1980s and the global financial crisis exposed a dramatic lacuna in the legal protection of the right to housing. Yet, the right to housing features not only in national and international human rights instruments, but also in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Charter rights are increasingly finding expression in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In particular, drawing on the Charter, the CJEU's interpretation of EU consumer law is moving towards a recognition of housing rights as inherent components of consumer protection. On the basis of such developments, this article examines whether there is scope to extend this human rights approach to new areas – namely, to the Mortgage Credit Directive (2014) – a major EU harmonising measure – and to the work of EU institutions now responsible for banking supervision. The article concludes that, if guided by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the case law of the CJEU and the practice of supranational banking supervision could significantly enhance the protection of the right to housing, both at EU and Member State level.     

Privacy,Data Retention and Domination: Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications

In Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, the European Court of Justice found the EU Data Retention Directive, which required the retention of communications data for up to two years, to be incompatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – the rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data. It is argued in this note that the decision ought to be taken as one that is concerned with the exercise of arbitrary power, a concern that is captured by the concept of domination.     

Opening up personal data protection: A conceptual controversy

The existence of a fundamental right to the protection of personal data in European Union (EU) law is nowadays undisputed. Established in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000, it is increasingly permeating EU secondary law, and is expected to play a key role in the future EU personal data protection landscape. The right's reinforced visibility has rendered manifest the co-existence of two possible and contrasting interpretations as to what it come to mean. If some envision it as a primarily permissive right, enabling the processing of such data under certain conditions, others picture it as having a prohibitive nature, implying that any processing of data is a limitation of the right, be it legitimate or illegitimate. This paper investigates existing tensions between different understandings of the right to the protection of personal data, and explores the assumptions and conceptual legacies underlying both approaches. It traces their historical lineages, and, focusing on the right to personal data protection as established by the EU Charter, analyses the different arguments that can ground contrasted readings of its Article 8. It also reviews the conceptualisations of personal data protection as present in the literature, and finally contrasts all these perspectives with the construal of the right by the EU Court of Justice.     

Going Unnoticed? Diagnosing the Right to Asylum in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines the right to asylum. Nonetheless, despite its ‘constitutionalisation’ within primary law, asylum remains a far too amorphous right, whose axiological potential has gone virtually unnoticed in the ongoing migratory crisis. The paper will argue that this is partly due to the fact that the Court of Justice on a few occasions has declined to clarify the scope of Article 18. The provision at issue therefore remains a pathological element that requires an adequate diagnosis on which accurate prognoses can be based. In an attempt to diagnose the right to asylum enshrined in Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, this paper will compare different hermeneutical approaches and reflect on the contextualisation of the mentioned provision through the lens of domestic and EU case law and in the light of the recent EU–Turkey Statement. The article will ultimately propose to interpret the EU asylum legislation as instrumental to the effective exercise of the right to asylum.     

‘Private jurisprudence’ and the right to be forgotten balancing test

Upon receipt of a right to be forgotten request, private actors like Google are responsible for implementing the balancing test between competing rights of privacy and data protection and free expression and access to information. This amounts to private jurisprudence that data subjects, lawyers, and interested parties could, theoretically, game to their advantage. This paper critiques this process and argues two separate, but related points. (1) Search engines have become the sole arbiter of the rights to privacy and data protection under Articles 7 and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, when safeguarding should be a responsibility of state authorities. (2) As private actors face litigation if their decision is not acceptable to the data subject, the right to access information and the public's right to know is compromised. Search engines exert considerable power over access to and Internet usage, yet nevertheless benefit from frameworks that permit a lack of adherence to similar human rights standards as public actors or agencies. As such, empowering search engines as decision-makers over conflicting fundamental rights is problematic. Rather than allow the content of the right to be forgotten to be fleshed out by private actors, the significant body of existing jurisprudence should form the basis for public guidelines on how to implement the right to be forgotten. An analysis of case law of national courts, the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU reveals two related matters: it is possible to reverse engineer how search engines determine which requests will be actioned and those which will be denied. This paper argues a) collectively the body of jurisprudence is of sufficient standing to develop a public and transparent balancing test that is fair to all stakeholders and b) private actors should no longer be resolving the conflict between competing fundamental rights. The paper closes by positing a framework, loosely based on ICANN's Uniform Domain Resolution Procedure for resolving conflict between conflicting cyber property rights that provides transparency and accountability to the right to be forgotten and removes search engines as arbiters of the balancing test in select cases.     

Security policies and the weakening of personal data protection in the European Union

In recent years, the reinforcement of security policies alongside the expansion of information systems for law enforcement and crime prevention entailed growing restrictions to personal data protection principles and procedural rights in the European Union. This paper seeks to elucidate this trend, while matching it with an EU institutional discourse based on balancing and proportionality. Indeed, EU institutions regularly present security measures and fundamental rights as somewhat symmetric values to be easily conciliated through balancing and proportionality. Considering the raising of the protection of personal data to the status of a fundamental right by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, its effect on a possible rebalancing of the values at stake is discussed. Yet, we conclude, for the time being, the potential for just and democratic solutions provided by the ideas of balancing and proportionality does not appear to be properly used.     

The EU and Issues of Human Rights Protection: Same Solutions to More Acute Problems?

Academic literature repeatedly calls for the EU's accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (hereinafter Convention 1 ). Similarly, the Lisbon Treaty provides that the EU must accede to the Convention. [Correction made here after initial online publication.] This might seem odd as the European Court of Justice (hereinafter ECJ 1 ) has over the years developed abundant case‐law on human rights protection in the EU, and the EU has not so long ago adopted a, albeit non‐binding, catalogue of human rights (the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (hereinafter Charter)). But after all these years, cases, and Treaty amendments, the EU is in fact going back to the ECJ's 1996 landmark opinion which recommended the EU's formal accession to the Convention, 1 already proposed in 1979 by the Commission. 1 One reason for this might be that, in the meantime, human rights issues have multiplied in the application of EU law, especially in areas such as the Second and Third Pillars where—at least initially—fewer human rights protection guarantees were foreseen.     

搜查与隐私权保护——加拿大宪法与美国宪法第4修正案之比较

<加拿大权利与自由宪章>第8条赋予了公民反对不合理的搜查和扣押的权利.与美国宪法第4修正案的发展历程类似,经由加拿大最高法院的判例解释,<宪章>第8条确立了隐私权的宪法保护.基于对美国宪法判例的批判和借鉴,<宪章>第8条下的隐私权在判断标准、保护范围方面体现了本国特色.第8条下隐私权具备的丰富内涵,不仅得益于加拿大最高法院确立的隐私权旨在促进的诸项基本价值,也与加拿大较为宽泛的非法证据排除规则有关.     

One law to rule them all? The reach of EU data protection law after the Google v CNIL case

Google v CNIL is, arguably, one of the landmark cases of EU data protection law and it has been an important development regarding its territorial reach. The judgment's findings in this regard have been controversial and have led to much discussion about their legitimacy and potential repercussions. This paper examines two aspects of this case. First, it considers the holdings of this judgment regarding the global application of EU law in relation to international law and sovereignty. This article argues that though EU decision-makers might have a degree of ‘data imperialism’ in their thinking, this judgment is not at odds with neither international law nor sovereignty. Second, the paper examines the methodology of the Court and the role it accorded to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU– an aspect that many commentators overlook. In this regard, I argue that the Court's methodology was problematic and that it failed to duly consider the role of the Charter, thus fragmenting EU law.     

The General Provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides the Union with a 'more evident' (as the European Council of Cologne asked for) framework of protection of the individuals before the public authorities within the European context, after more than thirty years (since the Stauder Case ) of full confidence in the leading role played by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. This new normative catalogue of fundamental rights (included the so called 'aspirational fundamental rights') implies one more instrument of protection which has to find its own place with regard to the protection afforded by the national Constitutions and the international agreements on human rights, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights, which are already a privileged source of inspiration for Court of Justice of the European Communities. It is the main objective of the General Provisions of the Charter to clarify which is that place and the relationship with those other levels of protection as managed by their supreme interpreters (i.e., the Constitutional—or Supreme—Courts of the Member States of the Union and the European Court of Human Rights).     

Opinion 1/15 of the Grand Chamber dated 26 July 2017 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada

On 26 July 2017, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice rendered its seminal Opinion 1/15 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada. The Grand Chamber considered that the decision of the Council about the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the agreement between the EU and Canada about the transfer and processing of PNR data must be based jointly on Article 16(2) about the protection of personal data and Article 87(2)(a) about police co-operation among member states in criminal matters, but not on Article 82(1)(d) about judicial co-operation in criminal matters in the EU of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The Grand Chamber also considered that the agreement is incompatible with Article 7 on the right to respect for private life, Article 8 on the right to the protection of personal data, Article 21 on non-discrimination and Article 52(1) on the principle of proportionality of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU since it does not preclude the transfer, use and retention of sensitive data. In addition to the requirement to exclude such data, the Grand Chamber listed seven requirements that the agreement must include, specify, limit or guarantee to be compatible with the Charter.The opinion of the Grand Chamber has far-reaching implications for the agreement on PNR data between the EU and Canada. It has also far-reaching implications for international agreements on PNR data between the EU and other third states. Last, it has far-reaching implications for Directive 681 of 27 April 2016 on PNR data.     

The Horizontal Effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU: Rediscovering the Reasons for Horizontality

This article analyses the horizontal effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Horizontal effect has been an integral part of the Union's application of fundamental rights, especially in the field of equality. However, the codification of fundamental rights in the Charter raises important questions as to how horizontal effect will continue to apply in the EU, particularly in the aftermath of the Court's reticent rulings in cases such as Dominguez and Association de Médiation Sociale. This article argues that the emphasis on prior approaches to horizontal effect in recent rulings fails to address the profound constitutional issues that the horizontal effect of a fundamental rights catalogue raises, which concern the role of private responsibility within the developing constitutional order of the European Union. It therefore calls for a more systematically theorised approach towards the horizontal application of fundamental rights under the Charter framework.     

Security,privacy and freedom and the EU legal and policy framework for biometrics

The adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon and the granting to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the same legal force as the Treaty has lent a new impulse to the consideration of fundamental human rights by the European Union (EU). The question remains, however, as to how this legal discourse, centred upon human rights, is actually shaping the EU regulatory framework in specific policy domains. The aim of this paper is to critically appraise the ways that the fundamental rights of security, privacy and freedom guaranteed by the Charter are being construed in the context of EU law and policy on biometrics, an ethically and morally sensitive security technology whose development and use are being actively promoted by the EU. We conclude that the interpretation of the pertinent rights, as well as their balancing, owes a great deal to the goals of EU policies for research and development, and under the auspices of Freedom, Security and Justice, shaped largely by political and economic considerations. These considerations then tend to prevail over ethically or morally-based legal claims.     

Balancing data protection and privacy – The case of information security sensor systems

This article analyses government deployment of information security sensor systems from primarily a European human rights perspective. Sensor systems are designed to detect attacks against information networks by analysing network traffic and comparing this traffic to known attack-vectors, suspicious traffic profiles or content, while also recording attacks and providing information for the prevention of future attacks. The article examines how these sensor systems may be one way of ensuring the necessary protection of personal data stored in government IT-systems, helping governments fulfil positive obligations with regards to data protection under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (The Charter), as well as data protection and IT-security requirements established in EU-secondary law. It concludes that the implementation of sensor systems illustrates the need to balance data protection against the negative privacy obligations of the state under the ECHR and the Charter and the accompanying need to ensure that surveillance of communications and associated metadata reach established principles of legality and proportionality. The article highlights the difficulty in balancing these positive and negative obligations, makes recommendations on the scope of such sensor systems and the legal safeguards surrounding them to ensure compliance with European human rights law and concludes that there is a risk of privatised policymaking in this field barring further guidance in EU-secondary law or case law.     

Supranational Fundamental Rights or Primacy of Sovereignty?

This analysis explores in detail various aspects of the possible legal impact of ‘British’ Protocol No 30 (the so‐called opt‐out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). On the basis of a legal appraisal, it concludes that the Protocol is not in any way to be understood as a substantial derogation from the standard of protection of fundamental rights in the EU or as an ‘opt‐out’ from the Charter in a substantial sense. Nevertheless, its significance is definitely not to be underestimated. Its adoption as a source of primary law enshrines a legally binding interpretation of the Charter and, in particular, an interpretation of its horizontal provisions. In Article 1(2) and Article 2, the Protocol in fact confirms that the application of the Charter cannot lead to a change in the existing competencies framework. These provisions are of a declaratory nature and apply to all Member States. In Article 1(1), the Protocol is of a constitutive nature since it rules out an extensive interpretation of what can be considered national legal acts adopted in the implementation of EU law only for those States signed up to the Protocol. This specifically means that if, in the future, as part of the application of the Charter, the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) has a tendency to subsume a certain area of national legislation under the ‘implementation of Union law’ outside the field of implementing standards, in the spirit of the Ellinki Radiophonia Tileorassi judgment (and subsequently allow their reviewability with respect to their conformity with the Charter), such action would be admissible only for those Member States that have not acceded to the Protocol. However, the Protocol cannot exclude the continued application of the general principles of law instead of the positively constituted fundamental rights in the Charter by the ECJ.     

The Development of EU Case‐Law on Age Discrimination in Employment: ‘Will You Still Need Me? Will You Still Feed Me? When I'm Sixty‐Four’

This article addresses the development of age discrimination law in the Court of Justice and concludes that there is a marked difference in the level of discretion given to Member States in cases relating to mandatory retirement policies. The article will critique the approach of the Court of Justice to the legitimate objective test and the proportionality test in retirement cases. It will also argue that the decisions of the Court of Justice to date have all involved cases with very similar factual scenarios, and the article hypothesises how a different conclusion might be reached in cases with different factors. It also considers the impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on such cases. The article concludes by arguing that mandatory retirement policies may no longer be compatible with EU law and that there is a need to move towards more flexible retirement policies.     

Exploring the non-absolute nature of the right to data protection

In two recent judgements, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that ‘The right to the protection of personal data is not, however, an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society’ (Eifert, para 48). This paper considers the ‘non-absolute’ nature of the right to data protection. Being a relatively new right, the boundaries of this right in the Charter are still somewhat unexplored. This paper considers five aspects that can be seen as setting boundaries to the otherwise absolute nature of the right to data protection: (a) consideration of the function of the right to data protection in society; (b) positive delimitations of the right that come from the formulation of the right (Article 8) in the Charter; (c) limitations on the right provided for in Article 52 of the Charter; (d) close connections with Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR; and (e) the detailed provisions in current data protection secondary legislation and the future data protection regulation framework. Based on the reflections on each of these boundary-setting aspects, the paper argues that in spite of occasional vagueness and conflicting approaches of each of the aspects, understanding of the right to data protection has evolved since its first formulation in the Charter. There is a subtle and gradual distancing from the initial understanding of the close relationship with the right to private and family life. This gradual distancing is a positive development as the two have different foundations, scope and purposes. Yet it is only when both are taken together that the shared common objective of providing effective protection to citizens' personal and family life can be achieved.     

The transformative nature of the EU Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles: Replacing the old paradigm (normative equivalency of rights)

In December 2022 the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union jointly signed the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles, a document aiming to steer the EU digital agenda upon EU constitutional values and fundamental rights. Digital constitutionalism scholars regard the Declaration as a positive step forward within the process of constitutionalization of the digital environment in Europe. The Declaration includes both traditional rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and digital principles. Some of these principles have progressively underpinned the EU digital policy framework while others have been expanded in the Declaration or are of completely new formulation. In this contribution, we assess the Declaration's value in terms of relevance and novelty within the landscape of protection of online needs and interests in the EU. By assessing the Declaration's normative approach and using Lawrence Lessig's distinction between codifying and transformative constitutional regimes, we evaluate the Declaration's progressive and transformative character under a constitutional perspective.     

Towards Administrative Human Rights in the EU. Impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Abstract: This article analyses the development of administrative human rights in the EU. It demonstrates that the new right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights crowns a long process of constitutionalisation of basic administrative rights in the Community. The article discusses the meaning, content, and possible impact of Article 41 of the Charter. It explains, inter alia, the doctrinal basis of a ‘right to good administration’, and its more immediate origins. It also offers a textual analysis and commentary of Article 41. Other rights, which possibly come within the concept of ‘good administration’ but are not included in Article 41, are also suggested. The article concludes with an evaluation of Article 41 of the Charter. It argues that although Article 41 is a significant development in terms of individual administrative rights, it offers a one‐sided vision of the function of administrative law.     

The Sinews of Peace: Rights to Solidarity in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract. This article examines the provisions on social and economic rights contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. After a conceptual clarification of the terms “fundamental rights” and “rights to solidarity,” three main claims are made. First, not all rights to solidarity are granted the status of fundamental rights in the Charter, in contrast with the treatment of the right to private property. Second, positive law does not justify such an approach. An analysis of the sources of the Charter clearly indicates that the right to private property is not a proper fundamental right as Community law stands. Third, rights to solidarity could be construed as a repository of arguments that Member States and regions could invoke when claiming an exception to the four fundamental freedoms.