Suchergebnisse

Five years in the making, the EU's e-evidence Regulation was finally adopted by the European Parliament on June 13. The Regulation will allow law enforcement authorities to directly compel online service providers operating in the EU to preserve or produce e-evidence in the context of criminal proceedings. This is achieved through applying the principle of mutual recognition to cooperation with online service providers, thereby skipping judicial control in the Member State where the service provider is established. Whilst these innovations have been lauded for facilitating access to data in cross-border cases, this blogpost will detail how the Regulation's emphasis on speed and efficiency comes at the expense of safeguarding suspects' fundamental rights.

It looks like a good week for data protection. On Tuesday, the Commission presented a new proposal for a Regulation on additional procedural rules for the GDPR, and a few hours later, the ECJ published its decision C-252/21 on Meta Platforms v Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office). While the Commission's proposal to improve enforcement in cross-border cases should probably be taken with a pinch of salt, the ECJ ruled on some things with remarkable clarity. The first reactions to the ruling were quite surprising; few had expected the ECJ to take such a clear stance against Meta's targeted advertising business model. It does however represent a consistent interpretation of the GDPR in the tradition and understanding of power-limiting data protection.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine—established by the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2022—published its report on 15 March 2023, detailing numerous violations of international human rights, criminal and humanitarian law, primarily carried out by Russian forces. Such commissions of inquiry are essential when other enforcement mechanisms are blocked, and can provide avenues for accountability in national, regional, and international courts. The full-scale attention of international institutions on Ukraine is a critical moment to strengthen the work of international fact-finding missions for future and existing armed conflicts.
Author information





Farnaz Dezfouli Asl



Farnaz Dezfouli Asl ist Doktorandin an der Justus-Liebig-Universität in Gießen und assoziierte Forscherin am HSFK-Programmbereich "Internationale Institutionen". Zu ihren akademischen Interessen gehören das Zusammenspiel zwischen internationalem Menschenrechtsgesetz und humanitären Völkerrecht, die Rolle des Völkerrechts bei der Tatsachenermittlung und dem Informationsmanagement, die Umsetzung des humanitären Völkerrechts durch Menschenrechtsmechanismen und die Anwendung von Gewalt bei Terrorismusbekämpfungsmaßnahmen. // Farnaz Dezfouli Asl is a PhD candidate at Justus Liebig University in Giessen and an Associate Fellow at PRIF's research department "International Institutions". Her academic interests include the interplay between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law, the role of international law in fact-finding and information management, the Implementation of IHL through human rights mechanisms and the use of force in counter-terrorism operations. | Twitter: @farnazDezfouli

|



Der Beitrag From Facts to Norm Violations and Accountability? The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

That was fast. On 8 June, only 11 days after the Polish so-called 'Lex Tusk' was signed into force, the Commission launched an infringement procedure against Poland. For the first time, the Commission is relying on the principle of democracy in Art. 10 TEU as an autonomous plea, dropping another bombshell shortly after the first direct invocation of Art. 2 TEU in infringement proceedings against Hungary earlier this year. This contribution discusses both the perks and potential perils of the direct enforcement of the principle of democracy in Art. 10 TEU. On the one hand, a shift from what is arguably better called 'militant rule of law' towards more literally EU militant democracy is a positive development, as it better captures the nature and range of the principles which are de facto under threat in several EU Member States. On the other hand, the present infringement action illustrates the principled challenge of militant democracy to preserve the possibility of democratic regime change, all whilst not lapsing into a form of institutional conservatism.

Frequent violations of human, labor, and environmental rights continue to impact supply chains globally, with notable prevalence in the Global South, but also in the Global North. The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (SCDDA, in German: Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz [LkSG]), enacted in 2023, represents significant progress in upholding rights within the context of socio-ecological transformation across value chains. However, the law faces challenges, particularly in terms of its prospective enforcement and the absence of a cohesive link between social and ecological rights. This article provides a commentary and argues that addressing these issues should be a priority.
Author information





Lillie Hafner



Lillie Hafner hat ihren Bachelor in Politikwissenschaft an der Universität Münster und University of Twente absolviert und war als Praktikantin am PRIF bei Hendrik Simon und Patrick Flamm tätig. Sie beschäftigt sich mit Konflikten in der sozial-ökologischen Transformation und der Schnittstelle von Migration, Grenzen und Digitalisierung. // Lillie Hafner completed her Bachelor's degree in Political Science at the University of Münster and the University of Twente and worked as an intern at PRIF with Hendrik Simon and Patrick Flamm. She focuses on conflicts in the socio-ecological transformation as well as the intersection of migration, borders, and digitalization.

|



Der Beitrag A Gap between Social and Ecological Rights: A Commentary after One Year of the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.