在欧盟成员国对机密数据实施制裁时处理恐怖主义相关人员的权利

IF 0.3 Q4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Stjepan Novak
{"title":"在欧盟成员国对机密数据实施制裁时处理恐怖主义相关人员的权利","authors":"Stjepan Novak","doi":"10.31297/HKJU.19.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper deals with the necessity of protecting procedural rights of persons or entities connected with terrorism in the course of international sanctions and legal sanctioning on one hand, and the requirement of protecting classified data of the EU member states on the other. When considering the rights of the defendant, one of the biggest issues is the lack of data stemming from the reluctance\nof the member states to share information from their jurisdiction with either the sanctioned persons or the Court of the European Union. It has arisen from the effort of the member states to protect their classified data, some of which are seen as particularly sensitive from the national security aspect, by their national legal regulations. The most serious issue is distrust of the member states in the Court\nof the EU, i.e. their doubt whether the EU justice system will be able to protect classified data appropriately. The Court of the European Union has tried to resolve these two conflicting tendencies, thus indirectly widening its jurisdictions to the areas previously reserved for the member states. It has regulated the handling of classified national security data in its practice and its internal regulations, for example in the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European\nUnion. In fact, the Court has conditioned the implementation of sanctions on the delivery of such data both to the Court and, although not in all instances, to the persons or entities whom the particular sanctions refer to. The problem could be solved by delivering an unclassified summary of the relevant data in order to provide an explanation as to why the competent body of a member state believes that a person or an entity should be covered with sanctions. Such a summary could be delivered to the Council of the EU, and if necessary, to the Court of the EU and the person or entity contesting the sanctions. Considering the principle of loyal cooperation stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the TEU, this should suffice to the Court of the EU.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31297/HKJU.19.2.5","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Procesna prava osoba povezanih s terorizmom pri primjeni sankcija naspram povjerljivih podataka država članica EU\",\"authors\":\"Stjepan Novak\",\"doi\":\"10.31297/HKJU.19.2.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper deals with the necessity of protecting procedural rights of persons or entities connected with terrorism in the course of international sanctions and legal sanctioning on one hand, and the requirement of protecting classified data of the EU member states on the other. When considering the rights of the defendant, one of the biggest issues is the lack of data stemming from the reluctance\\nof the member states to share information from their jurisdiction with either the sanctioned persons or the Court of the European Union. It has arisen from the effort of the member states to protect their classified data, some of which are seen as particularly sensitive from the national security aspect, by their national legal regulations. The most serious issue is distrust of the member states in the Court\\nof the EU, i.e. their doubt whether the EU justice system will be able to protect classified data appropriately. The Court of the European Union has tried to resolve these two conflicting tendencies, thus indirectly widening its jurisdictions to the areas previously reserved for the member states. It has regulated the handling of classified national security data in its practice and its internal regulations, for example in the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European\\nUnion. In fact, the Court has conditioned the implementation of sanctions on the delivery of such data both to the Court and, although not in all instances, to the persons or entities whom the particular sanctions refer to. The problem could be solved by delivering an unclassified summary of the relevant data in order to provide an explanation as to why the competent body of a member state believes that a person or an entity should be covered with sanctions. Such a summary could be delivered to the Council of the EU, and if necessary, to the Court of the EU and the person or entity contesting the sanctions. Considering the principle of loyal cooperation stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the TEU, this should suffice to the Court of the EU.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42223,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31297/HKJU.19.2.5\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31297/HKJU.19.2.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31297/HKJU.19.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文论述了在国际制裁和法律制裁过程中保护与恐怖主义有关的个人或实体的程序权利的必要性,以及保护欧盟成员国机密数据的要求。在考虑被告的权利时,最大的问题之一是缺乏数据,因为成员国不愿与受制裁人员或欧盟法院分享其管辖范围内的信息。这源于成员国通过其国家法律法规保护其机密数据的努力,其中一些数据在国家安全方面被视为特别敏感。最严重的问题是对欧盟法院成员国的不信任,即他们怀疑欧盟司法系统是否能够适当保护机密数据。欧洲联盟法院试图解决这两种相互冲突的趋势,从而间接地将其管辖范围扩大到以前为成员国保留的领域。它在其实践和内部条例中,例如在《欧洲联盟普通法院议事规则》中,对国家安全机密数据的处理进行了规范。事实上,法院规定,执行制裁的条件是向法院提供此类数据,尽管并非在所有情况下都是向特定制裁所指的个人或实体提供此类数据。可以通过提供相关数据的非机密摘要来解决这个问题,以便解释为什么成员国的主管机构认为一个人或一个实体应该受到制裁。这样的摘要可以提交给欧盟理事会,必要时还可以提交给欧洲联盟法院和对制裁提出质疑的个人或实体。考虑到TEU第4条第3款规定的忠诚合作原则,这对欧盟法院来说就足够了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Procesna prava osoba povezanih s terorizmom pri primjeni sankcija naspram povjerljivih podataka država članica EU
The paper deals with the necessity of protecting procedural rights of persons or entities connected with terrorism in the course of international sanctions and legal sanctioning on one hand, and the requirement of protecting classified data of the EU member states on the other. When considering the rights of the defendant, one of the biggest issues is the lack of data stemming from the reluctance of the member states to share information from their jurisdiction with either the sanctioned persons or the Court of the European Union. It has arisen from the effort of the member states to protect their classified data, some of which are seen as particularly sensitive from the national security aspect, by their national legal regulations. The most serious issue is distrust of the member states in the Court of the EU, i.e. their doubt whether the EU justice system will be able to protect classified data appropriately. The Court of the European Union has tried to resolve these two conflicting tendencies, thus indirectly widening its jurisdictions to the areas previously reserved for the member states. It has regulated the handling of classified national security data in its practice and its internal regulations, for example in the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. In fact, the Court has conditioned the implementation of sanctions on the delivery of such data both to the Court and, although not in all instances, to the persons or entities whom the particular sanctions refer to. The problem could be solved by delivering an unclassified summary of the relevant data in order to provide an explanation as to why the competent body of a member state believes that a person or an entity should be covered with sanctions. Such a summary could be delivered to the Council of the EU, and if necessary, to the Court of the EU and the person or entity contesting the sanctions. Considering the principle of loyal cooperation stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the TEU, this should suffice to the Court of the EU.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信