EU Case Law

Request History

No previous requests logged.

Session

• 0(null)

Request

Cake Params

• plugin(null)
• controllereu_case_law_documents
• actionindex
• named(empty)
• pass(empty)
• localeen
• paging(array)
  • EuCaseLawDocument(array)
    • page8
    • current7
    • count150
    • prevPage(true)
    • nextPage(true)
    • pageCount22
    • order(array)
      • EuCaseLawDocument.judgement_datedesc
    • limit7
    • options(array)
      • page8
    • paramTypequerystring
    • queryScope(null)

Post data

No post data.

Query string

• page8

Cookie

To view Cookies, add CookieComponent to Controller

Current Route

• name(null)
• _fields(empty)
• resourceActionindex
• modelEuCaseLawDocument
• keys(array)
  • 0locale
• options(array)
  • pass(empty)
• defaults(array)
  • controllereu_case_law_documents
  • actionindex
  • plugin(null)
• template/:locale/eu-case-law
• config(empty)

Sql Logs

Logs

View Variables

• menuNameCurrentMenuLinkmain
• title_for_layoutEU Case Law
• documents(array)
  • 0(array)
    • EuCaseLawDocument(array)
      • id134
      • created2016-11-22 17:08:24
      • modified2017-01-31 13:22:34
      • titleRuslanas Kovalkovas
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">The<em> Rusulanas Kovalkovas</em><span style="color: rgb(51, 77, 85); font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; font-weight: bold;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">case is part of a trilogy of cases decided in the same week with <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=185246&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=668996"><em>Krzystof Marek Poltorak</em></a> </span><span style="font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> and <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=185253&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=156861"><em>Halil Ibrahim Özçelik</em></a> </span><span style="font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"> case about the extent of what a ‘judicial authority’ is in the proceedings relating to the execution of a European Arrest Warrant.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) decided to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:</p> <p class="C09Marge0avecretrait" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt; text-indent: -28.35pt; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">‘(1) Are the expressions “judicial authority”, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of [the] Framework Decision ..., and “judicial decision”, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of [the] Framework Decision ..., autonomous terms of EU law?</p> <p class="C09Marge0avecretrait" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt; text-indent: -28.35pt; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">(2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: what are the criteria for determining whether an authority of the issuing Member State is such a “judicial authority” and whether the [European arrest warrant] issued by it is consequently such a “judicial decision”?</p> <p class="C09Marge0avecretrait" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt; text-indent: -28.35pt; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">(3) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is the [Lithuanian] Ministry of Justice ... covered by the term “judicial authority”, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of [the] Framework Decision ..., and is the European arrest warrant issued by that authority consequently a “judicial decision” within the meaning of Article 1(1) of [the] Framework Decision ... ?</p> <p class="C09Marge0avecretrait" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt; text-indent: -28.35pt; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;">(4) If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the designation of a national police authority, such as the [Lithuanian] Ministry of Justice ..., as the issuing judicial authority in conformity with EU law?’</p> <p>The Court ruled that the term ‘judicial authority’, referred to in Article 6(1) of Council Framework <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32002F0584">Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002</a> on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits an organ of the executive, such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, from being designated as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by it with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.</p> <p>Therefore the concept does not extend to officials in the Lithuanian justice ministry .</p> <p></p> <p></p> <p></p> <p class="C09Marge0avecretrait"></p> <p class="C09Marge0avecretrait" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt; text-indent: -28.35pt; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"></p> <p class="C09Marge0avecretrait" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt 56.7pt; text-indent: -28.35pt; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; text-align: justify;"></p> <div></div>
      • case_numberC-477/16 PPU
      • party_nameOpenbaar Ministerie v Ruslanas Kovalkovas
      • judgement_date2016-11-10
      • courtCourt of Justice (ECJ)
      • linkhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-477/16%20PPU
      • keywordsEAW,European Arrest Warrant,Framework Decision 2002/584,judicial authority
      • slugruslanas-kovalkovas
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 1(array)
    • EuCaseLawDocument(array)
      • id135
      • created2016-11-29 17:02:03
      • modified2017-01-31 13:26:17
      • titleAtanas Ognyanov
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">Request was made for a preliminary ruling lodged on 3 December 2014 on the Atanas Ognyanov case.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria) asked, in essence, the Court of Justice whether the national rule which permits the executing Member State (in this case, Bulgaria) to grant to the sentenced person a reduction in sentence because of work carried out by him in the period of his detention in the issuing Member State (in this case, Denmark), although the competent authorities in Denmark did not, in accordance with their national law, grant such a reduction in sentence, is compatible with EU law.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In today’s judgment, the Court examines the context and objectives pursued by the EU law concerning the transfer of prisoners and holds that, with respect to the part of the custodial sentence served by the prisoner on the territory of the issuing Member State until his transfer to the executing Member State, only the law of the issuing Member State is applicable, not least on the question of any grant of a reduction in sentence. The law of the executing State can apply only to the part of the sentence that remains to be served by that person, after that transfer.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">According to the Court, it falls to the issuing State to determine the reductions in sentence that pertain to the period of detention served on its territory. The issuing State alone is competent to grant a reduction in sentence for work carried out before the transfer. Consequently, the executing State cannot, retroactively, substitute its own rules (and, in particular, its rules on reductions in sentence) for those of the issuing State with respect to that part of the sentence which has already been served by the prisoner on the territory of the issuing Member State.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In this case, the Danish authorities expressly stated that Danish legislation did not permit any reduction in a custodial sentence by reason of work carried out in the period of detention. Consequently, the Bulgarian authorities cannot grant a reduction in sentence with respect to the part of the sentence already served in Denmark. An interpretation to the contrary would be likely to undermine the objectives pursued by EU law (including the principle of mutual recognition) and would jeopardise the mutual confidence of Member States in their respective legal systems.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Court concludes that EU law precludes a national rule that permits the executing Member State to grant to the sentenced person a reduction in sentence by reason of work carried out in the period of his detention in the issuing Member State, although no such reduction in sentence was granted by the competent authorities of the issuing State, in accordance with the law of that State.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In relation to this case, the Court was also asked about the legal effects of framework decisions.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In that regard, the Court states that the framework decision applicable in this case was adopted on the basis of the former third pillar of the European Union, in particular, under Article 34(2)(b) EU. Under that provision, read in the light of the Protocol on transitional provisions adopted on the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, framework decisions have no direct effect until they are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. The framework decision applicable in this case has not been subject to any such repeal, annulment or amendment. Consequently, it has no direct effect.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Court also states that national courts called on to interpret domestic law are bound to do so, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the framework decision in order to achieve the result sought by it. Further, that requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law includes the obligation, on national courts, including those ruling as courts of last instance, to alter, where necessary, settled case-law if that case-law is based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with the objectives of a framework decision.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In the light of those principles, the Court concludes that it is for the referring court to ensure that the Framework Decision is given full effect, and if necessary to disapply, on its own authority, the interpretation adopted by the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Appeal), since that interpretation is not compatible with EU law.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Source: Court of Justice of the European Union, Press release No 117/16, Luxembourg, 8 November 2016</em></p>
      • case_number C-554/14
      • party_nameCriminal proceedings against Ognyanov
      • judgement_date2016-11-08
      • courtCourt of Justice (ECJ)
      • linkhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=185201&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=324997
      • keywords
      • slugatanas-ognyanov-1
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 2(array)
    • EuCaseLawDocument(array)
      • id128
      • created2016-10-12 21:23:28
      • modified2017-01-31 13:52:12
      • titleEmil Milev
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;"><span class="marker"><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva,sans-serif;"><span style="text-align: justify;">According to the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure (NPK),</span> <span style="text-align: justify;">the court assessing a pretrial detention measure may not, in the litigation stage of criminal proceedings, examine whether there are reasonable grounds to assume that a criminal offence has been committed. The </span><span style="text-align: justify;">Supreme Court of Cassation opined, after the matter was brought before it by the referring court, the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria), that there is a conflict between that national procedural legislation and Article 5(4) of the ECHR. However, it allowed national courts the option to apply either the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights or the national legislation, pending action by the legislature. This case</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> concerns the conformity of the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Cassation with Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. </span><span style="text-align: justify;">A particular feature of this case is the fact that the request for a preliminary ruling, made in the context of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Emil Milev and his pretrial detention, was received by the Court a few months after the entry into force of Directive 2016/343 and well before the expiry of its period for transposition. Ms Milev is still in detention, therefore, this case is examined under the PPU procedure. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span class="marker"><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva,sans-serif;"><span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: justify;">Advocate General Bobek held that such Opinion delivered in the course of the period for transposition is not liable seriously to compromise the objectives prescribed by that directive if it grants courts the freedom to decide between the application of Article 5(4) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(c) thereof, and the application of national legislation contrary to those provisions.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span class="marker"><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva,sans-serif;">The Court stated that the Opinion of the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation, delivered at the beginning of the transposition period of Directive 2016/343/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, which confers on the national courts having jurisdiction to hear an action brought against a custody decision the ability to decide whether, during the trial stage of the criminal proceedings, the continued custody of an accused must be subject to a review by the court of whether, in addition, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he committed the offence with which he is charged <em>is not likely seriously to compromise</em>, after the expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of the directive, the attainment of the objectives prescribed by that directive.</span></span></span></p> <p></p>
      • case_numberC-439/16 PPU
      • party_nameCriminal proceedings against Emil Milev
      • judgement_date2016-10-11
      • courtCourt of Justice of the EU
      • linkhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-439/16&td=ALL
      • keywordsPresumption of innocence,right to be present at trial,Directive 2016/343
      • slugemil-milev-1
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 3(array)
    • EuCaseLawDocument(array)
      • id130
      • created2016-10-12 21:57:17
      • modified2017-01-31 13:55:03
      • titleAlfredo Rendón Marín
      • description<div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p style="text-align: justify;">EU law does not permit a national of a non-EU country who has the sole care of an EU citizen who is a minor to be automatically refused a residence permit or to be expelled from the territory of the European Union on the sole ground that he has a criminal record</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In order to be capable of being adopted, an expulsion measure must be proportionate and founded on the personal conduct of the national of a non-EU country and that conduct must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of the host Member State</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Because of their criminal records, two nationals of non-EU countries were, respectively, refused a residence permit and served with a deportation order by the authorities of the host Member State – the State of nationality of minor children of whom they have sole care and who possess citizenship of the Union. Alfredo Rendón Marín has sole care and custody of a son, who has Spanish nationality, and a daughter, who has Polish nationality. The two minor children have always resided in Spain. CS is the mother and sole carer of a child of British nationality who resides with her in the United Kingdom.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Members of the press should note that Case C-304/14 was brought before the Court of Justice anonymised by the referring United Kingdom tribunal, which had made an anonymity order so as to protect the interests of CS’s child.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court of Spain) and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (United Kingdom) asked the Court of Justice whether the existence of a criminal record may in itself justify refusal of a right of residence or expulsion in the case of a national of a non-EU country who is the sole carer of a minor who is an EU citizen.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">By its judgments delivered today, the Court holds, first, that EU law precludes national legislation under which a national of a non-EU country who has the sole care of a minor who is an EU citizen is automatically refused a residence permit, or must be expelled, on the sole ground that that national has a criminal record where the refusal or expulsion obliges the child to leave the territory of the European Union.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Court begins by explaining that the directive on the freedom of movement and residence of EU citizens and their family members <span style="vertical-align: 5pt;">1 </span>applies to EU citizens and their family members who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national. Consequently, that directive applies to the situation of Mr Rendón Marín and his daughter of Polish nationality, but it does not apply to the situation of Mr Rendón Marín and his son of Spanish nationality or to that of CS and her son of British nationality as these children have always resided in the Member State of which they are nationals. Only Mr Rendón Marín and his Polish daughter therefore qualify for a right of residence under the directive.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p> <div class="page" title="Page 2"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Court states next that the FEU Treaty confers the status of EU citizen on every person who is a national of a Member State. By virtue of that status, every EU citizen has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr Rendón Marín’s son and CS’s child, who are EU citizens, qualify for such a right. The Court points out that the FEU Treaty precludes national measures which are liable to deprive EU citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as EU citizens. Such deprival occurs where refusing a national of a non-EU country a residence permit or expelling him would have the effect of obliging his child, an EU citizen in his sole care, to go with him and, therefore, to leave the territory of the European Union.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">However, the Court explains that the status of EU citizen does not affect the possibility for the Member States of justifying a derogation from the right of residence of EU citizens or their family members (whether that right is exercised under the directive or under the Treaty) on grounds, in particular, of public policy or public security. Such a derogation must observe the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of proportionality and must be based on the personal conduct of the individual concerned in order to ascertain whether he represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting the society of the host Member State. For the purpose of determining whether that derogation is consistent with the principle of proportionality, account should be taken of certain criteria, such as the duration of his residence, his age, his state of health, his family and economic situation, his social and cultural integration, the extent of his links with the country of origin and the degree of gravity of the offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">So far as concerns the situation of Mr Rendón Marín, the Court explains that his criminal conviction in 2005 cannot in itself constitute grounds for refusing a residence permit, without assessment of his personal conduct or of any danger that he could represent for the requirements of public policy or public security.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In addition, the Court accepts that, in exceptional circumstances, a Member State may adopt an expulsion measure by relying on the exception linked to upholding the requirements of public policy and safeguarding public security, concepts which must be interpreted strictly. In order to justify such an expulsion measure, it is necessary to assess whether, having regard to the criminal offences committed by a national of a non-EU country having the sole care of a minor who is a Union citizen, that national’s personal conduct constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat that may adversely affect one of the fundamental interests of society. In this connection, account must be taken of the criteria set out above. The Court holds that, in CS’s case, it is for the United Kingdom tribunal to assess specifically the extent to which she is a danger by weighing up the interests involved (that is to say, the principle of proportionality, the child’s best interests and the fundamental rights whose observance the Court ensures).</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div>
      • case_numberC-165/14
      • party_nameAlfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado
      • judgement_date2016-09-13
      • courtCourt of Justice of the EU (Grand Chamber)
      • linkhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-165/14&td=ALL
      • keywords
      • slugalfredo-rendon-marin
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 4(array)
    • EuCaseLawDocument(array)
      • id131
      • created2016-10-12 22:20:03
      • modified2017-01-31 13:57:56
      • titleCS
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">This case, which must be read in conjunction with Case C-165/14 involves the possibility to expel from the territory of a Member State a third-country national who is the primary carer of an EU national and has been convicted of a criminal offences. According to the Grand Chamber, Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a third-country national who has been convicted of a criminal offence to be expelled from the territory of that Member State to a third country notwithstanding the fact that that national is the primary carer of a young child who is a national of that Member State, in which he has been residing since birth without having exercised his right of freedom of movement, when the expulsion of the person concerned would require the child to leave the territory of the European Union, thereby depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his rights as a Union citizen. However, in exceptional circumstances a Member State may adopt an expulsion measure provided that it is founded on the personal conduct of that third-country national, which must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of that Member State, and that it is based on consideration of the various interests involved, matters which are for the national court to determine.</p> <div></div>
      • case_numberC-304/14
      • party_nameSecretary of State for the Home Department v CS
      • judgement_date2016-09-13
      • courtCourt of Justice of the EU (Grand Chamber)
      • linkhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-304/14&td=ALL
      • keywordsArticle 20 TFEU
      • slugcs
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 5(array)
    • EuCaseLawDocument(array)
      • id129
      • created2016-10-12 21:52:03
      • modified2017-09-30 16:50:06
      • titleOpinion 1/15 EU-Canada PNR Agreement
      • description<div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">According to Advocate General Mengozzi, the agreement on the transfer of passenger name record data, planned between the European Union and Canada, cannot be entered into in its current form </span></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">A number of provisions of the draft agreement are incompatible with EU fundamental rights </span></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Starting in 2010, the European Union and Canada negotiated an agreement on the transfer and processing of passenger name record data (PNR Agreement). The agreement envisaged intends to allow the transfer of PNR data to the Canadian authorities for its use, retention and, where appropriate, subsequent transfer, for the purpose of combatting terrorism and other serious transnational crime. The draft agreement further provides for PNR data security and integrity requirements, an immediate masking of sensitive data, the right of access to data, the rectification and erasure of data, the possibility of administrative and judicial redress, and storage of the data for a maximum period of five years. </span></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">The agreement was signed in 2014 and the Council of the European Union requested the European Parliament to approve it. The Parliament then decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice in order to ascertain whether the agreement envisaged was compatible with EU law guaranteeing the respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data. In particular, the Parliament is uncertain whether, notwithstanding the guarantees afforded by the agreement, the interference with the fundamental right to the protection of personal data is justified<span style="vertical-align: 5pt;">1</span>. It is to be noted that this is the first time the Court has been called upon to give a ruling on the compatibility of a draft international agreement with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. </span></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi takes the view, first, that the agreement envisaged is compatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (in particular the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data), provided that: </span></span></p> <ul style="list-style-type: none"> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- the categories of PNR data of airline passengers are clearly and precisely worded and sensitive data is excluded from the scope of the agreement; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- offences covered by the definition of serious forms transnational crime are listed exhaustively in the agreement; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- the agreement identifies in a sufficiently clear and precise manner the authority responsible for processing PNR data, in such a way as to ensure the protection and security of that data; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- the number of ‘targeted’ persons can be limited, to a large extent, and in a non- discriminatory manner, to those who can be reasonably suspected of participating in a terrorist offence or serious transnational crime; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> the agreement specifies that only the officials of the competent Canadian authority are to be authorised to access the PNR data and lays down objective criteria that enable the number of those officials to be specified;</span><span style="font-size: 12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span></p> </li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="page" title="Page 2"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <ul style="list-style-type: none"> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- the agreement indicates precisely why it is objectively necessary to retain all PNR data for a maximum period of five years; where the PNR data is to be retained for a period of five years, the data that would enable an airline passenger to be directly identified must be depersonalised by redaction; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- an independent authority or a court in Canada is empowered to review, in advance, whether the competent Canadian authority may, on a case-by-case basis, disclose PNR data to other Canadian or foreign public authorities (in cases where the data relates to an EU citizen, prior information must also be sent to the competent authorities of the Member State concerned and/or the Commission); </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- the agreement systematically ensures, by a clear and precise rule, that an independent authority can monitor the respect for the private life and protection of the personal data of passengers whose PNR data is processed; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- the agreement makes clear that requests for access, rectification and annotation made by passengers not present on Canadian territory may be submitted to an independent public authority. </span></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">By contrast, Advocate General Mengozzi takes the view that certain provisions of the agreement envisaged, as currently drafted, are contrary to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. More specifically, those are the provisions which: </span></span></p> </li> </ul> <ul style="list-style-type: none"> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- allow, beyond what is strictly necessary, the extension of the possibilities for processing PNR data, independently of the public security objective pursued by the agreement, namely preventing and detecting terrorist offences and serious forms of transnational crime; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- provide for the processing, use and retention by Canada of PNR data containing sensitive data; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- confer on Canada, beyond what is strictly necessary, the right to make any disclosure of information without a requirement for any connection with the public security objective pursued by the agreement; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- authorise Canada to retain PNR data for up to five years for, in particular, any specific action, review, investigation or judicial proceedings, without a requirement for any connection with the public security objective pursued by the agreement; </span></span></p> </li> <li> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">- allow PNR data to be transferred to a foreign public authority without the competent Canadian authority, subject to review by an independent authority, first being satisfied that the foreign public authority in question to which the data is transferred cannot itself subsequently communicate the data to another foreign body. </span></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Generally, the Advocate General reached those conclusions on the basis of the Court’s rulings in Digital Rights Ireland<span style="vertical-align: 5pt;"> </span>and Schrems. In his view, it is necessary to follow the route outlined by those judgments and to subject the agreement envisaged to a strict review as regards the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data. It is necessary that, at a time when modern technology allows public authorities, in the name of combating terrorism and serious transnational crime, to develop extremely sophisticated methods of monitoring the private life of individuals and analysing their personal data, the Court should ensure that the proposed </span></span><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">measures, even when they take the form of envisaged international agreements, reflect a fair balance between the legitimate desire to maintain public security and the equally fundamental right for everyone to be able to enjoy a high level of protection of his private life and his own data. </span></span></p> </li> </ul> </div> </div> </div>
      • case_number1/15
      • party_nameOpinion on the envisaged EU-Canada Agreement on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data
      • judgement_date2016-09-08
      • courtCourt of Justice of the EU
      • linkhttp://eclan.eu/en/eu-case-law/opinion-1-15-eu-canada-pnr-agreement
      • keywords
      • slugopinion-1-15-eu-canada-pnr-agreement
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 6(array)
    • EuCaseLawDocument(array)
      • id120
      • created2016-07-28 10:59:08
      • modified2016-09-05 20:07:01
      • titleJZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź – Śródmieście
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">The Member State that issued a European arrest warrant is required to consider, for the purposes of deducting the period of detention served in the executing Member State, whether the measures taken against the person concerned in the executing State have the effect of depriving a person of liberty.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In this judgment, the Court observes that the concept of ‘detention’, which appears in the Framework Decision, is an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the EU. Within the meaning of the Framework Decision, it refers not to a measure that is restrictive of liberty but to one that deprives a person of it, and covers not only imprisonment but also any measure or set of measures imposed on the person concerned which, on account of the type of measure, duration, effects and means of implementation deprive the person concerned of his liberty in a way that is comparable to imprisonment.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Therefore, a nine hour daily curfew monitored by means of an electronic tag does not, in principle, have that effect.<br /> <br /> However, in so far as the Framework Decision merely imposes a minimum level of protection of the fundamental rights of a person subject to a European arrest warrant, the Framework Decision does not preclude the judicial authority of the Member State that issued the warrant from being able, on the basis of national law alone, to deduct from the total period of detention all or part of the period during which that person was subject, in the executing Member State, to measures involving not a deprivation of liberty but a restriction of it.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Source: Court of Justice of the European Union, Press release No 83/16, Luxembourg, 28 July 2016 </em></p>
      • case_numberC-294/16 PPU
      • party_nameJZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź – Śródmieście
      • judgement_date2016-07-28
      • courtCourt of Justice (ECJ)
      • linkhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=C-294/16&td=ALL
      • keywordsEAW,European Arrest Warrant,detention,autonomous concept
      • slugjz-v-prokuratura-rejonowa-lodz-srodmiescie
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
• query(array)
  • page8
• meta(array)
  • titleEU Case Law
• $request->data(empty)
• $this->validationErrors(array)
  • Menu(empty)
  • MenuLink(empty)
  • MenuLinkTranslation(empty)
  • Page(empty)
  • PageTranslation(empty)
  • SearchDocument(empty)
  • AcademicProject(empty)
  • PhdDocument(empty)
  • EuLegislatoryDocument(empty)
  • EuCaseLawDocument(empty)
  • Newsletter(empty)
  • NewsletterTranslation(empty)
  • Event(empty)
  • EventTranslation(empty)
  • Member(empty)
  • Publication(empty)
  • Link(empty)
  • LinkTranslation(empty)
• Loaded Helpers(array)
  • 0Asset
  • 1Attachment
  • 2Html
  • 3Share
  • 4Form
  • 5Paginator
  • 6CookiesWarning
  • 7EventDates
  • 8Website
  • 9FormCrypt
  • 10Number
  • 11SimpleGraph
  • 12Menus
  • 13DebugTimer
  • 14Toolbar
  • 15Text
  • 16HtmlToolbar

App Constants

CakePHP Constants

PHP Environment

Included Files

Include Paths

• 1/usr/share/php
• 2-> /var/web/vd13792/ulb008_releases/20220919065337/cakephp/lib/Cake/

Included Files

• core(array)
  • Behavior(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Behavior/ContainableBehavior.php
  • Cache(array)
    • 0CORE/Cache/Cache.php
    • 1CORE/Cache/Engine/FileEngine.php
    • 2CORE/Cache/CacheEngine.php
  • Component(array)
    • 0CORE/Controller/Component/PaginatorComponent.php
    • 1CORE/Controller/Component/SessionComponent.php
  • Config(array)
    • 0CORE/Config/config.php
  • Configure(array)
    • 0CORE/Configure/PhpReader.php
    • 1CORE/Configure/ConfigReaderInterface.php
  • Controller(array)
    • 0CORE/Controller/Controller.php
    • 1CORE/Controller/ComponentCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Controller/Component.php
  • Datasource(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Datasource/CakeSession.php
    • 1CORE/Model/Datasource/Database/Mysql.php
    • 2CORE/Model/Datasource/DboSource.php
    • 3CORE/Model/Datasource/DataSource.php
  • Error(array)
    • 0CORE/Error/exceptions.php
    • 1CORE/Error/ErrorHandler.php
  • I18n(array)
    • 0CORE/I18n/I18n.php
    • 1CORE/I18n/L10n.php
  • Log(array)
    • 0CORE/Log/CakeLog.php
    • 1CORE/Log/LogEngineCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Log/Engine/FileLog.php
    • 3CORE/Log/Engine/BaseLog.php
    • 4CORE/Log/CakeLogInterface.php
  • Model(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Model.php
    • 1CORE/Model/BehaviorCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Model/ConnectionManager.php
    • 3CORE/Model/ModelBehavior.php
  • Network(array)
    • 0CORE/Network/CakeRequest.php
    • 1CORE/Network/CakeResponse.php
  • Other(array)
    • 0CORE/bootstrap.php
    • 1CORE/basics.php
    • 2CORE/Core/App.php
    • 3CORE/Core/Configure.php
    • 4CORE/Core/CakePlugin.php
    • 5CORE/Event/CakeEventManager.php
    • 6CORE/Event/CakeEventListener.php
    • 7CORE/Event/CakeEvent.php
    • 8CORE/Core/CakeObject.php
  • Routing(array)
    • 0CORE/Routing/Dispatcher.php
    • 1CORE/Routing/Filter/AssetDispatcher.php
    • 2CORE/Routing/DispatcherFilter.php
    • 3CORE/Routing/Filter/CacheDispatcher.php
    • 4CORE/Routing/Router.php
    • 5CORE/Routing/Route/CakeRoute.php
  • Utility(array)
    • 0CORE/Utility/Hash.php
    • 1CORE/Utility/Debugger.php
    • 2CORE/Utility/CakeText.php
    • 3CORE/Utility/Inflector.php
    • 4CORE/Utility/ObjectCollection.php
    • 5CORE/Utility/ClassRegistry.php
  • View(array)
    • 0CORE/View/HelperCollection.php
• app(array)
  • Behavior(array)
    • 0APP/Model/Behavior/CachableBehavior.php
  • Config(array)
    • 0APP/Config/core.php
    • 1APP/Config/preview/bootstrap.php
    • 2APP/Config/bootstrap.php
    • 3APP/Config/languages.php
    • 4APP/Config/routes.php
    • 5APP/Config/database.php
    • 6APP/Config/preview/database.php
  • Controller(array)
    • 0APP/Controller/EuCaseLawDocumentsController.php
    • 1APP/Controller/AppController.php
  • Model(array)
    • 0APP/Model/Menu.php
    • 1APP/Model/MenuLink.php
    • 2APP/Model/MenuLinkTranslation.php
    • 3APP/Model/Page.php
    • 4APP/Model/PageTranslation.php
    • 5APP/Model/AppModel.php
    • 6APP/Model/AcademicProject.php
    • 7APP/Model/PhdDocument.php
    • 8APP/Model/EuLegislatoryDocument.php
    • 9APP/Model/EuCaseLawDocument.php
    • 10APP/Model/Newsletter.php
    • 11APP/Model/NewsletterTranslation.php
    • 12APP/Model/Event.php
    • 13APP/Model/EventTranslation.php
    • 14APP/Model/Member.php
    • 15APP/Model/Publication.php
    • 16APP/Model/Link.php
    • 17APP/Model/LinkTranslation.php
  • Other(array)
    • 0APP/mysqli-overwrites.php
    • 1APP/Entity/AppEntity.php
    • 2APP/Entity/EventEntity.php
• plugins(array)
  • BoostCake(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0BoostCake/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Component(array)
      • 0BoostCake/Controller/Component/BoostCakeComponent.php
  • CakeAdmin(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0CakeAdmin/Config/routes.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0CakeAdmin/Lib/Routing/Route/AdminRoute.php
      • 1CakeAdmin/Lib/AdminConfig.php
      • 2CakeAdmin/Lib/Routing/Route/AdminBelongsToRoute.php
  • Contact(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Contact/Config/routes.php
  • DebugKit(array)
    • Component(array)
      • 0DebugKit/Controller/Component/ToolbarComponent.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0DebugKit/Lib/DebugMemory.php
      • 1DebugKit/Lib/Panel/HistoryPanel.php
      • 2DebugKit/Lib/DebugPanel.php
      • 3DebugKit/Lib/Panel/SessionPanel.php
      • 4DebugKit/Lib/Panel/RequestPanel.php
      • 5DebugKit/Lib/Panel/SqlLogPanel.php
      • 6DebugKit/Lib/Panel/TimerPanel.php
      • 7DebugKit/Lib/Panel/LogPanel.php
      • 8DebugKit/Lib/Log/Engine/DebugKitLog.php
      • 9DebugKit/Lib/Panel/VariablesPanel.php
      • 10DebugKit/Lib/Panel/EnvironmentPanel.php
      • 11DebugKit/Lib/Panel/IncludePanel.php
      • 12DebugKit/Lib/DebugTimer.php
      • 13DebugKit/Lib/DebugKitDebugger.php
  • Event(array)
    • Model(array)
      • 0Event/Model/PluginEvent.php
      • 1Event/Model/EventAppModel.php
      • 2Event/Model/PluginEventTranslation.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Event/Entity/PluginEventEntity.php
  • MailingService(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0MailingService/Config/routes.php
  • Media(array)
    • Component(array)
      • 0Media/Controller/Component/UploadComponent.php
  • Menu(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Menu/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Component(array)
      • 0Menu/Controller/Component/MenusComponent.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0Menu/Model/PluginMenu.php
      • 1Menu/Model/MenuAppModel.php
      • 2Menu/Model/PluginMenuLink.php
      • 3Menu/Model/PluginMenuLinkTranslation.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Menu/Lib/Tree.php
      • 1Menu/Lib/Vertex.php
  • Page(array)
    • Model(array)
      • 0Page/Model/PluginPage.php
      • 1Page/Model/PluginPageTranslation.php
  • Search(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Search/Config/routes.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0Search/Model/Behavior/SearchableBehavior.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0Search/Model/SearchDocument.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Search/Vendor/DoubleMetaPhone.php
  • Share(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Share/Config/routes.php
  • System(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0System/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0System/Lib/I18n/Language.php
      • 1System/Lib/Routing/Resources.php
      • 2System/Lib/Routing/Route/I18nResourceRoute.php
      • 3System/Lib/Routing/Route/ResourceRoute.php
      • 4System/Entity/Entity.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0System/Model/EntityModel.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0System/Model/Behavior/TranslatableBehavior.php
      • 1System/Model/Behavior/ViewsBehavior.php
      • 2System/Model/Behavior/SluggableBehavior.php
  • Utils(array)
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Utils/Lib/Routing/Filter/MaintenanceFilter.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0Utils/Model/Behavior/ArchivableBehavior.php