The Global Dimension of the EU’s AFSJ: On Internal Transparency and External Practice

The ‘global’ forms an increasingly regular, active and explicit part of the daily business of the EU. The paper argues that there is a specific mismatch between the commitment to transparency on a daily level in international and external fields and practices of EU law and the actual substantive law-making practice evolving. While the EU’s vision of the global is to a degree the most transparent ever, the converse is not necessarily the case as to its legal content. The global dimension to EU law has increasingly expansive subjects and objectives, in areas of existing strength in global actorness (e.g. trade) and in more evolving competences (e.g. security). It argues that while the EU is a significant soft power in trade, it is arguably less so in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) where its global reach becomes more challenging. The relative weakness of the EU’s global approach in the AFSJ is usually or acutely felt by individuals who face challenges in seeking redress increasingly as to aspects of transparency. The paper argues that there is a significant mismatch of internal transparency practices concerning the EU’s global law-making. Ultimately, mismatches between internal procedures and external law-making as to transparency operate adversely upon the global in a variety of ways, e.g. as to transparency and clarity, good administration and territoriality claims taken by individuals. It outlines the express approach to the global in EU policy in (i) migration (ii) passenger name records and the non-express approach to the ‘global’ in EU data protection and data transfers

Digital health: How can the EU help make the most out of it? EPC Policy Brief, 25 January 2018

Our society is in the midst of a vast and pervasive data revolution. Enormous amounts of data are produced and exchanged daily and people are increasingly using all sort of digital tools in almost any aspects of their life. Health is no exception. A 2013 survey shows that 75% of European hospitals have some type of electronic health records (EHR) system in place.1 In 2014, six out of ten Europeans have searched for health information on the Internet2 and the download of health and well-being applications in 2016 has reached 3 billion globally.

What drives the European Parliament? The Case of the General Data Protection Regulation. Bruges Political Research Papers 47/2015.

This paper evaluates which factors influence the European Parliament’s decision-making, based on a case study: the 2012 proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation. Following a ‘competitive testing’ approach, six different hypotheses are successively challenged in order to explain why the EP adopted a fundamental rights- oriented position. The first three factors relate to the internal organization of the EP’s work, i.e. the role played by the lead committee, by the rapporteur and by secretariat officials. The last three factors are external-related, i.e. lobbying activities, outside events and institutional considerations. Based on the empirical findings, it is argued that even though the EP’s position is due to a range of various factors, some of them prove to be more relevant than others, in particular the rapporteur and lead committee’s roles. New institutionalism theories also provide a comprehensive explanation for the EP’s willingness to achieve a fundamental rights oriented outcome

Data protection authority perspectives on the impact of data protection reform on cooperation in the EU

This article presents the findings of interviews with representatives from the majority of EU data protection authorities in the context of the ongoing data protection reform process. It identifies commonalities between the authorities to the extent it is possible to speak about a EU DPA perspective, but also identifies areas of tension and disagreement as well as future intentions. The focus of the article is upon the impact of the data protection reform process on the way that these independent bodies, located in EU Member States will increasingly have to cooperate at an EU-level. Capturing these perspectives at this moment in the reform process provides insight into the process from a group of concerned stakeholders, but also insight into how these stakeholders are (re-)positioning themselves, planning, and anticipating the impacts of the reform.This article is based upon research conducted as part of the PHAEDRA II project ("Improving practical and helpful cooperation between data protection authorities" and the article is possible due to the assistance and contribution of all project partners. The project is co-funded by the European Union and the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme (JUST/2013/FRAC/AG6068), however the contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and cannot be taken to represent the views of the European Commission. More information on the project can be found at http://www.phaedra-project.eu

Harmonizing Judicial Data Protection Standards Between The EU and US

In the digital age,the protection of personal data has become a crucial issue, often leading to conflicts between regions with differing legal and cultural values. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) represent a prominent example of such a divergence, with the EU emphasizing stringent data protection measures and the US prioritizing economic and security interests. These differing approaches have resulted in significant challenges for transatlantic data flows, notably highlighted by the invalidation of the EU-US Privacy Shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This essay aims to explore the complexities of privacy and data protection within the context of transatlantic relations, providing a comprehensive analysis that bridges empirical data and theoretical insights. The study seeks to identify the economic, operational, and legal impacts of regulatory divergences and propose evidence-based policy recommendations to harmonize data protection standards between the EU, and the US. The research employs a literature study method, systematically reviewing scholarly articles, legal texts, case law, and policy documents related to data protection and privacy. It integrates Socio-Legal Theory to analyze the intersection of legal frameworks, social practices, and cultural attitudes. Empirical data is gathered through qualitative and quantitative analysis, focusing on the economic impacts, compliance challenges, and legal risks associated with transatlantic data flows. The findings reveal significant economic costs and compliance burdens for businesses due to the absence of stable data transfer mechanisms. Legal risks and judicial consequences under the EU’s GDPR further exacerbate these challenges. The study identifies specific areas where regulatory harmonization is possible, offering policy recommendations grounded in empirical data to enhance data protection standards and facilitate smoother data exchanges. By combining empirical analysis with theoretical insights, this research contributes to a nuanced understanding of data protection and privacy, essential for informed policy-making and effective judicial practice

Disinformation and propaganda – impact on the functioning of the rule of law in the EU and its Member States. Study Requested by the LIBE committee. CEPS Special Report, February 2019

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs and requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, assesses the impact of disinformation and strategic political propaganda disseminated through online social media sites. It examines effects on the functioning of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in the EU and its Member States. The study formulates recommendations on how to tackle this threat to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It specifically addresses the role of social media platform providers in this regard