Skip to main content
Top

2024 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

National Security and Essential Security Interests in CJEU Jurisprudence

Author : Marek Jaśkowski

Published in: Weaponising Investments

Publisher: Springer Nature Switzerland

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The chapter analyses the case law of the CJEU on national security and essential interests of member states security. It answers the following questions: what do the national security and essential security interests clauses in EU law actually mean, what is their content? What role do they play? What is the extent of discretion of the member states when applying those clauses? What are the requirements concerning an effective review of measures undertaken to protect security?
The analysis leads to the conclusion that recent case law could be seen as the beginning of differentiation or stratification between clauses of public and national security. This case law is, however, contradicted to some extent by the interpretation of the ‘public security’ clause by the Court. Instead of demoting the public security to less crucial threats to ‘make room’ above for national security, the Court seems to continue to attribute to it fundamental importance (notably a threat to the survival of the population, as well as the risk of a serious disturbance to foreign relations or the peaceful coexistence of nations). Also, as concerns the role of the national security clause, the difference between national and public clauses seems to be only quantitative, not qualitative. For the Court, the national security clause does not seem to be about the question of delimitation of competencies between the EU and the member states.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
See, for example, Peers (1996) for whom “‘national security’ derogations inevitably form part of or overlap with public security or foreign policy exceptions”.
 
2
Trybus (2004), p. 197 for whom “‘public security’ is a wide concept covering all aspects of security, internal and external, including the concept of national security”.
 
3
Esplugues (2018), pp. 71–72.
 
4
McDonald and Brollowski (2011).
 
5
Christakis (2008), pp. 9–10.
 
6
Opinion delivered on 15 January 2020, La Quadrature du Net and others, ECLI:EU:C:2020:6.
 
7
de Kok (2022), p. 92.
 
8
Judgment of the Court of 10 July 1984, Campus Oil Limited and others, case 72/83, ECLI:EU:C:1984:256, para. 34.
 
9
Judgment of the Court of 24 June 2015 H. T. v Land Baden-Württemberg, case C-373/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:413.
 
10
Judgment of the Court of 15 February 2016, J. N. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, case C-601/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:84, paras 66–67.
 
11
View delivered on 26 January 2016, J. N. v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, case C-601/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:85, para. 91.
 
12
Opinion delivered on 20 July 2017, European Commission v Republic of Austria, case C-187/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:578, para. 46 and footnote 21.
 
13
See, for example, ‘essential national security interests’ in judgment of the Court of 20 March 2018, European Commission v Republic of Austria, case C-187/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:194, para. 82.
 
14
Opinion delivered on 10 February 2009, European Commission v Republic of Finland, case C-284/05, ECLI:EU:C:2009:67, paras 112–134, in particular para. 127. However, this case has been decided before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with its Article 4(2).
 
15
Judgment of the Court of 26 April 2022, NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark, case C-368/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:298, para. 84.
 
16
Khan and Eisenhut (2015), para. 8; Barbe (1998), p. 20; Daniel (2014); Trybus (2004), p. 200. Trybus defines ‘national security’ in this meaning as ‘entire field of rules, which have been adopted to protect the territorial integrity, important strategic interests and political independence of a state’ Ibid., p. 200. Or actually should it be ‘the territorial integrity, important strategic interests and political independence of a state’, because it is not the rules what are national security, but the interest which they aim to protect.
 
17
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 135.
 
18
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 136.
 
19
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020, Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others, case C-623/17, ECLI:EU:C:2020:790, paras 74–75.
 
20
Judgment of the Court of 5 April 2022, G.D. v The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and Others, case C-140/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:258, paras 61–62.
 
21
Judgment of the Court of 21 June 2022 Ligue des droits humains ASBL v Conseil des ministres, case C-817/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:491, para. 170.
 
22
Judgment of the Court of 20 September 2022 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v SpaceNet AG and Telekom Deutschland GmbH, cases C-793/19 and C-794/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:702, para. 92.
 
23
Judgment of the Court of 5 April 2022, G.D. v The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and Others, case C-140/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:258, para. 63.
 
24
Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2020 European Commission v Hungary, case C-808/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1029, para. 221.
 
25
Judgment of the Court of 22 June 2021, Proceedings brought by B, case C-439/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:504, para. 67.
 
26
Judgment of the Court of 5 April 2022, G.D. v The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and Others, case C-140/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:258, para. 63.
 
27
Hatje (2012).
 
28
von Bogdandy and Schill (2011), para. 32 with reference to case C-275/06, para. 49, and effectively to Article 15(1) of directive 2002/58.
 
29
Judgment of the Court of 18 January 2022, JY v Wiener Landesregierung, case C-118/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:34, para. 69.
 
30
Article 28(3) of directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
 
31
Judgment of the Court of 23 November 2010, Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis, case C-145/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:708, para. 40–41.
 
32
Judgment of the Court of 23 November 2010, Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis, case C-145/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:708, para. 49.
 
33
Hagemeyer (2020), p. 819.
 
34
Tzanou and Karyda (2021), pp. 7–8.
 
35
It was, however, employed in EU secondary law well before 2009, the earlies example being probably Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (Article 9(2)). The (sparse) earlier case-law concerning secondary law shall not be analysed in detail in this contribution.
 
36
Judgment of the Court of 10 July 1984, Campus Oil Limited and others, case 72/83, ECLI:EU:C:1984:256, para. 34.
 
37
Opinion delivered on 28 January 2021, B. K. v Republika Slovenija, case C-742/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:77, fn. (30).
 
38
Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2021, B. K. v Republika Slovenija, case C-742/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:597, notably para. 40.
 
39
Jaeckel (2011), para. 12; Sadowski (2012).
 
40
Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2021, B. K. v Republika Slovenija, case C-742/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:597, para. 40.
 
41
Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2018, European Commission v Republic of Austria, case C-187/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:194, para. 75.
 
42
Judgment of the Court of 4 September 2014, Schiebel Aircraft GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend, case C-474/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2139, para. 35.
 
43
It must be emphasised that this paragraph concerns the role of the national security clause as set out in Article 4(2) TEU, as prima facie its wording and scope sets it on a different level than most national security clauses contained in EU secondary law.
 
44
Opinion delivered on 15 April 2021, V.М.А. v Stolichna obshtina, rayon “Pancharevo”, case C-490/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:296, paras 82 et seq.
 
45
Opinion delivered on 18 March 2021, Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, case C-848/19 P, ECLI:EU:C:2021:218, para. 80.
 
46
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 99. This position was expressed by the CJEU in reply to a number of governments intervening in the case which submitted that ‘Directive 2002/58 does not apply to national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, since the purpose of that legislation is to safeguard national security. The intelligence services’ activities, in so far as they relate to the maintenance of public order and to the safeguarding of internal security and territorial integrity, are part of the essential functions of the Member States and, consequently, are within their exclusive competence, as evidenced, in particular, by the third sentence of Article 4(2) TEU’ (para. 89). Apparently, it was, however, relevant for the CJEU that the national legislative measures in question in the case imposed obligations on individuals (providers of electronic communications services) and did not concern only state security agencies (para. 96). See also Mitsilegas et al. (2022).
 
47
Judgment of the Court of 26 April 2022, NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark, case C-368/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:298, para. 84.
 
48
Zalnieriute (2022), p. 208.
 
49
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 136.
 
50
Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2020 European Commission v Hungary, case C-808/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1029, para. 262 a contrario.
 
51
Opinion delivered on 6 October 2021, NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark, case C-368/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:298, para. 55.
 
52
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003, Fiocchi munizioni SpA v Commission of the European Communities. case T-26/01. ECLI:EU:T:2003:248 (not appealed against), para. 58.
 
53
See, for example, judgment of the Court of 22 June 2021, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others v Conseil des ministres, case C-718/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:505, para. 56.
 
54
Judgment of the Court of 26 April 2022, NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark, case C-368/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:298, para. 86.
 
55
Notably both of them insist on respect for the responsibilities of the member states in the domains of national or internal security.
 
56
Judgment of the Court of 2 April 2020, European Commission v Republic of Poland and Others, joined cases C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17, ECLI:EU:C:2020:257, para. 158.
 
57
Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2020 European Commission v Hungary, case C-808/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1029, para. 216.
 
58
For example, European Commission indicated that the member states used to interpret too broadly and complained that ‘many Member States have seen Article 223 as embodying a general principle that all areas concerning national security are not covered by the Treaties’ (Communication ‘The Challenges facing the European defence-related industry’, 24 January 1996, COM(96) 10 final, p. 14). See also I. Barbe, according to whom the use of the relevant article by some member states was ‘totalement abusive’ (Barbe 1998, p. 23).
 
59
See, for example, judgment of the Court of 7 June 2012, Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy, case C-615/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:324, para. 35.
 
60
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 99.
 
61
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 146.
 
62
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 136.
 
63
See, for example, Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 147 and judgment of the Court of 17 December 2020 European Commission v Hungary, case C-808/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1029, paras 261–262.
 
64
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003, Fiocchi munizioni SpA v Commission of the European Communities. case T-26/01. ECLI:EU:T:2003:248 (not appealed against), para. 58.
 
65
Judgment of the Court of 26 April 2022, NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark, case C-368/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:298, para. 84.
 
66
Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2020 European Commission v Hungary, case C-808/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1029, para. 216.
 
67
Judgment of the Court of 5 April 2022, G.D. v The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and Others, case C-140/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:258, para. 62.
 
68
See, for example, judgment of the Court of 7 June 2012, Insinööritoimisto InsTiimi Oy, Case C-615/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:324, para. 35. The stance of the Court was the same with regard to essential security clause in secondary law, see judgment of the Court of 20 March 2018, European Commission v Republic of Austria, case C-187/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:194, para. 78.
 
69
Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2018, European Commission v Republic of Austria, case C-187/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:194, para. 78.
 
70
Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2020 European Commission v Hungary, case C-808/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1029, para. 221.
 
71
Judgment of the Court of 2 April 2020, European Commission v Republic of Poland and Others, joined cases C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17, ECLI:EU:C:2020:257, para. 159.
 
72
Judgment of the Court of 21 June 2022 Ligue des droits humains ASBL v Conseil des ministres, case C-817/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:491, para. 219.
 
73
Judgment of the Court of 21 June 2022 Ligue des droits humains ASBL v Conseil des ministres, case C-817/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:491, para. 219.
 
74
Article 8(2) in connection with Article 8(3)(e) of directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection.
 
75
Article 11(2) of directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals.
 
76
de Kok (2022), p. 93.
 
77
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 139.
 
78
To that effect, see, among others, judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2021, Criminal proceedings against PM and Others, joined cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1034.
 
79
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, para. 139.
 
80
Judgment of the Court of 4 June 2013, ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department, case C-300/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:363, para. 54.
 
81
Judgment of the Court of 4 June 2013, ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department, case C-300/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:363, paras 57–64.
 
82
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020 La Quadrature du Net and Others v Premier ministre and Others, joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791.
 
83
Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2020, Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others, case C-623/17, ECLI:EU:C:2020:790.
 
84
Judgment of the Court of 5 April 2022, G.D. v The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and Others, case C-140/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:258.
 
85
Judgment of the Court of 21 June 2022 Ligue des droits humains ASBL v Conseil des ministres, case C-817/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:491, para. 170.
 
Literature
go back to reference Barbe I (1998) L’article 223 du Traité de Rome : un article controversé. Droit & Défense Barbe I (1998) L’article 223 du Traité de Rome : un article controversé. Droit & Défense
go back to reference Christakis T (2008) L’Etat avant le droit? L’exception de “sécurité nationale” en droit international. Revue générale de droit international public Christakis T (2008) L’Etat avant le droit? L’exception de “sécurité nationale” en droit international. Revue générale de droit international public
go back to reference Daniel É (2014) Exception de sécurité nationale (art. 346 TFUE). Europe Daniel É (2014) Exception de sécurité nationale (art. 346 TFUE). Europe
go back to reference de Kok J (2022) Legal remedies against investment screening decisions. In: The rise of public security interests in corporate mergers and acquisitions. Wolf Legal Publishers, pp 85–112 de Kok J (2022) Legal remedies against investment screening decisions. In: The rise of public security interests in corporate mergers and acquisitions. Wolf Legal Publishers, pp 85–112
go back to reference Esplugues C (2018) Foreign investment, strategic assets and national security. Intersentia, CambridgeCrossRef Esplugues C (2018) Foreign investment, strategic assets and national security. Intersentia, CambridgeCrossRef
go back to reference Hagemeyer TM (2020) Access to legal redress in an EU investment screening mechanism. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020. Springer, Cham, pp 795–833CrossRef Hagemeyer TM (2020) Access to legal redress in an EU investment screening mechanism. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020. Springer, Cham, pp 795–833CrossRef
go back to reference Hatje A (2012) Artikel 4 EUV. In: Schwarze J, Becker U, Hatje A, Schoo J (eds) EU-Kommentar, 3. Auflage. Nomos/Facultas.wuv, Baden-Baden/Wien Hatje A (2012) Artikel 4 EUV. In: Schwarze J, Becker U, Hatje A, Schoo J (eds) EU-Kommentar, 3. Auflage. Nomos/Facultas.wuv, Baden-Baden/Wien
go back to reference Jaeckel L (2011) Art. 346 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München Jaeckel L (2011) Art. 346 AEUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München
go back to reference Khan D-E, Eisenhut D (2015) Article 346 TFEU. In: Geiger R, Khan D-E, Kotzur M (eds) European Union treaties: Treaty on European Union, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Beck/Hart, München/Oxford Khan D-E, Eisenhut D (2015) Article 346 TFEU. In: Geiger R, Khan D-E, Kotzur M (eds) European Union treaties: Treaty on European Union, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Beck/Hart, München/Oxford
go back to reference Mitsilegas V, Guild E, Kuskonmaz E, Vavoula N (2022) Data retention and the future of large-scale surveillance: the evolution and contestation of judicial benchmarks. Eur Law J Mitsilegas V, Guild E, Kuskonmaz E, Vavoula N (2022) Data retention and the future of large-scale surveillance: the evolution and contestation of judicial benchmarks. Eur Law J
go back to reference Peers S (1996) National security and European law. Yearb Eur Law 16:363–404CrossRef Peers S (1996) National security and European law. Yearb Eur Law 16:363–404CrossRef
go back to reference Sadowski W (2012) Artykuł 346 TFUE. In: Kornobis-Romanowska D, Łacny J, Wróbel A (eds) Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej. Komentarz. Wolters Kluwer Polska Sadowski W (2012) Artykuł 346 TFUE. In: Kornobis-Romanowska D, Łacny J, Wróbel A (eds) Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej. Komentarz. Wolters Kluwer Polska
go back to reference Trybus M (2004) The limits of European community competence for defence. EERR 9:189–217CrossRef Trybus M (2004) The limits of European community competence for defence. EERR 9:189–217CrossRef
go back to reference Tzanou M, Karyda S (2021) Privacy international and quadrature du net: one step forward two steps back in the data retention saga? Tzanou M, Karyda S (2021) Privacy international and quadrature du net: one step forward two steps back in the data retention saga?
go back to reference von Bogdandy A, Schill SW (2011) Art. 4 EUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München von Bogdandy A, Schill SW (2011) Art. 4 EUV. In: Grabitz E, Hilf M, Nettesheim M (eds) Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Beck, München
go back to reference Zalnieriute M (2022) A struggle for competence: national security, surveillance and the scope of EU law at the Court of Justice of European Union. Mod Law Rev 85:198–218CrossRef Zalnieriute M (2022) A struggle for competence: national security, surveillance and the scope of EU law at the Court of Justice of European Union. Mod Law Rev 85:198–218CrossRef
Metadata
Title
National Security and Essential Security Interests in CJEU Jurisprudence
Author
Marek Jaśkowski
Copyright Year
2024
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/17280_2023_17

Premium Partner