欧盟-美国关于执法部门获取数据的谈判:分歧、挑战和欧盟法律程序和选择

IF 2.6 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW
T. Christakis, Fabien Terpan
{"title":"欧盟-美国关于执法部门获取数据的谈判:分歧、挑战和欧盟法律程序和选择","authors":"T. Christakis, Fabien Terpan","doi":"10.1093/IDPL/IPAA022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The EU and the US kicked off negotiations in September 2019 for the conclusion of a very important agreement on LEA access to data. This is the first article to present the context of these negotiations and the numerous challenges surrounding them. \nThere are strong divergences between the EU and the US about what the scope and the architecture of this agreement should be. The US government supports the conclusion of a “framework agreement” with the EU to be followed by bilateral agreements with EU Member States – in order to satisfy CLOUD Act requirements. The EU wishes to arrive at a self-standing, EU-wide comprehensive agreement and is opposed to solutions that might lead to fragmentation and unequal treatment between EU Member States. \nThis article presents a detailed EU Law perspective on all these issues, and refers to relevant precedents concerning the conclusion of law enforcement, data-related or other international agreements. It discusses the division of competence on e-evidence between the EU and its Members States; possible architecture for the agreement and options under EU Law; and the role of the respective European Institutions (Commission, Council, Parliament) in the negotiation and conclusion of such an agreement. \nThe article also studies, using existing case law, what the role of the CJEU could be in relation to such an EU-US e-evidence Agreement. \nThe article will be useful to anyone interested in transatlantic data flows as well as judicial cooperation matters and, beyond its specific scope, could be used as a real “guide” to EU Law procedures, options and precedents in relation to the conclusion of international data-related agreements. \n \nNB: This is a pre-copyedited, preprint version of an article accepted for publication in International Data Privacy Law following peer review. The final and updated version will be published here: https://academic.oup.com/idpl. The final version also includes a post-scriptum examining what the effects could be of the July 16th, 2020 Schrems II Judgment of the CJEU on the ongoing EU-US negotiations, as well as the relevance of the October 6th, 2020 data retention/collection judgments of the CJEU.","PeriodicalId":51749,"journal":{"name":"International Data Privacy Law","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EU–US negotiations on law enforcement access to data: divergences, challenges and EU law procedures and options\",\"authors\":\"T. Christakis, Fabien Terpan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/IDPL/IPAA022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The EU and the US kicked off negotiations in September 2019 for the conclusion of a very important agreement on LEA access to data. This is the first article to present the context of these negotiations and the numerous challenges surrounding them. \\nThere are strong divergences between the EU and the US about what the scope and the architecture of this agreement should be. The US government supports the conclusion of a “framework agreement” with the EU to be followed by bilateral agreements with EU Member States – in order to satisfy CLOUD Act requirements. The EU wishes to arrive at a self-standing, EU-wide comprehensive agreement and is opposed to solutions that might lead to fragmentation and unequal treatment between EU Member States. \\nThis article presents a detailed EU Law perspective on all these issues, and refers to relevant precedents concerning the conclusion of law enforcement, data-related or other international agreements. It discusses the division of competence on e-evidence between the EU and its Members States; possible architecture for the agreement and options under EU Law; and the role of the respective European Institutions (Commission, Council, Parliament) in the negotiation and conclusion of such an agreement. \\nThe article also studies, using existing case law, what the role of the CJEU could be in relation to such an EU-US e-evidence Agreement. \\nThe article will be useful to anyone interested in transatlantic data flows as well as judicial cooperation matters and, beyond its specific scope, could be used as a real “guide” to EU Law procedures, options and precedents in relation to the conclusion of international data-related agreements. \\n \\nNB: This is a pre-copyedited, preprint version of an article accepted for publication in International Data Privacy Law following peer review. The final and updated version will be published here: https://academic.oup.com/idpl. The final version also includes a post-scriptum examining what the effects could be of the July 16th, 2020 Schrems II Judgment of the CJEU on the ongoing EU-US negotiations, as well as the relevance of the October 6th, 2020 data retention/collection judgments of the CJEU.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51749,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Data Privacy Law\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Data Privacy Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/IDPL/IPAA022\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Data Privacy Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IDPL/IPAA022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

欧盟和美国于2019年9月启动谈判,以达成一项非常重要的LEA数据获取协议。这是介绍这些谈判背景和围绕它们的众多挑战的第一篇文章。欧盟和美国在该协议的范围和架构方面存在巨大分歧。美国政府支持与欧盟达成“框架协议”,随后与欧盟成员国达成双边协议,以满足云计算法案的要求。欧盟希望达成一个独立的、全欧盟范围的全面协议,反对可能导致欧盟成员国之间分裂和不平等待遇的解决方案。本文对所有这些问题提出了详细的欧盟法律视角,并参考了有关执法,数据相关或其他国际协议的相关先例。讨论了欧盟及其成员国在电子证据方面的权限划分;根据欧盟法律,协议的可能架构和选择;以及各自的欧洲机构(委员会、理事会、议会)在谈判和缔结这一协定中的作用。本文还运用现有的判例法,研究了在这样一个欧盟-美国电子证据协议中,欧洲法院可以发挥什么样的作用。这篇文章将对任何对跨大西洋数据流动和司法合作事务感兴趣的人都很有用,并且在其具体范围之外,可以作为欧盟法律程序、选择和与国际数据相关协议缔结有关的先例的真正“指南”。注:这是一篇经过同行评审的文章的预编辑、预印本,可以在《国际数据隐私法》上发表。最终和更新的版本将在这里发布:https://academic.oup.com/idpl。最终版本还包括一份后稿,审查欧洲法院2020年7月16日施雷姆斯二世判决对正在进行的欧盟-美国谈判的影响,以及欧洲法院2020年10月6日数据保留/收集判决的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EU–US negotiations on law enforcement access to data: divergences, challenges and EU law procedures and options
The EU and the US kicked off negotiations in September 2019 for the conclusion of a very important agreement on LEA access to data. This is the first article to present the context of these negotiations and the numerous challenges surrounding them. There are strong divergences between the EU and the US about what the scope and the architecture of this agreement should be. The US government supports the conclusion of a “framework agreement” with the EU to be followed by bilateral agreements with EU Member States – in order to satisfy CLOUD Act requirements. The EU wishes to arrive at a self-standing, EU-wide comprehensive agreement and is opposed to solutions that might lead to fragmentation and unequal treatment between EU Member States. This article presents a detailed EU Law perspective on all these issues, and refers to relevant precedents concerning the conclusion of law enforcement, data-related or other international agreements. It discusses the division of competence on e-evidence between the EU and its Members States; possible architecture for the agreement and options under EU Law; and the role of the respective European Institutions (Commission, Council, Parliament) in the negotiation and conclusion of such an agreement. The article also studies, using existing case law, what the role of the CJEU could be in relation to such an EU-US e-evidence Agreement. The article will be useful to anyone interested in transatlantic data flows as well as judicial cooperation matters and, beyond its specific scope, could be used as a real “guide” to EU Law procedures, options and precedents in relation to the conclusion of international data-related agreements. NB: This is a pre-copyedited, preprint version of an article accepted for publication in International Data Privacy Law following peer review. The final and updated version will be published here: https://academic.oup.com/idpl. The final version also includes a post-scriptum examining what the effects could be of the July 16th, 2020 Schrems II Judgment of the CJEU on the ongoing EU-US negotiations, as well as the relevance of the October 6th, 2020 data retention/collection judgments of the CJEU.
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
4.70
自引率
9.50%
发文量
20
×
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