Does The Eu Involve To A Greater Extent Than Anti-Terrorist Legislation?

 

Steve Peers

In the wake of the appalling attacks inwards Paris ii days ago, it exclusively took 24 hours for the European Union Commission to state that it would suggest a novel moving ridge of European Union anti-terrorist measures inwards a month’s time. It’s non however known what the content of this law volition be; but the really persuasion of novel legislation is a profound mistake.

Of course, it was correct for the European Union institutions to limited sympathy for the victims of the attack, together with solidarity every bit regards defense forcefulness of gratis speech. Equally, it would non hold out problematic to role existing European Union anti-terrorism laws if necessary, inwards lodge (for instance) to give upwardly the suspects inwards this law-breaking on the footing of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW), inwards the lawsuit that they fled to unopen to other Member State.  The query is whether the European Union needs more such laws.

For the European Union has already reacted to prior terrorism offences, commencement every bit regards 9/11 together with and then to the atrocities inwards Madrid together with London inwards 2004 together with 2005. The number is a huge trunk of anti-terrorism law, catalogued here past times the SECILE project. This comprises non exclusively measures specifically concerning terrorism (such every bit noun criminal law measures, adopted inwards 2002 together with amended inwards 2008), but many other measures which teach inwards easier to cooperate every bit regards terrorism every bit good every bit other criminal offences, such every bit the EAW, the laws on telephone commutation of police line information together with transmission of evidence across borders, together with thus on.  

Moreover, at that topographic point are proposals already nether word which would employ to terrorism issues (among others), such every bit a novel law on Europol, the EU’s police line intelligence means (discussed here), together with proposed European Union legislation on the transfer of airlines’ passenger mention records (PNR).  

So what novel laws is the Commission probable to propose? It may suggest a novel version of the information retentivity Directive, the previous version of which was struck downward past times the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) final spring, inwards the Digital Rights judgment (discussed here). Other ideas nether discussion, according to leaked documents (see here together with here) are novel laws strengthening mandatory checks at borders .  

Are whatever of these laws actually necessary? Member States tin already adopt laws on retentivity of communications data, pursuant to the EU’s e-privacy directive. As the European Parliament’s legal service has confirmed (see its advice here), if Member States adopt such measures, they volition hold out bailiwick to the constraints of the Digital Rights judgment, which bans volume surveillance carried out inwards the absence of safeguards to protect privacy. Equally, Member States are gratis to institute their ain PNR systems, inwards the absence of whatever EU-wide stair out (besides European Union treaties amongst the USA, Canada together with Commonwealth of Australia on PNR). The query of whether volume surveillance is every bit such compatible amongst human rights has already been sent to the CJEU past times the European Parliament, which has asked the Court to dominion on this number inwards the context of the EU/Canada PNR treaty (see word here).

It would hold out possible to adopt novel laws calling for systematic edge checks inwards specific cases. In practice, this would probable hateful checks on Muslims who are returning subsequently go to places similar Syria. It is questionable whether holler for detailed farther questions at the external borders will, past times itself, actually create a lot to preclude terrorism. After all, inwards the Paris attacks, it unfortunately proved impossible to preclude an apparent terrorist laid on despite extensive anti-terrorist legislation on the books, together with bodyguards protecting the staff of a known terrorist target.

There’s also a query of regulation here. The Paris attacks were directed at gratis speech: the foundation of liberal democracy. Of course of education efforts should hold out stepped upwardly to preclude such attacks from happening again; but existing laws let for targeted intelligence gathering together with sharing already, The Commission’s immediate answer reeks of panic. And the straight laid on on key democratic principles this calendar week inwards Paris is exactly the incorrect context to consider that novel legislation curtailing other key freedoms is limited.

 

Barnard & Peers: chapter 25

Share this post