Article 3 - Right to integrity of the person
Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 6 - Right to liberty and security
Article 7 - Respect for private and family life
Article 8 - Protection of personal data
Article 11 - Freedom of expression and information
Article 52 - Scope and interpretation
Key facts of the case:
The plaintiffs challenge the regulatory provisions requiring electronic communications operators, Internet service providers and content hosts to store the traffic and location data of all their users, together with their civil identity data and certain data relating to their accounts and the payments they make online, in a generalised, undifferentiated way, for a period of one year. They also challenge the regulatory provisions allowing intelligence services to collect and process this data.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Can generalised data retention be justified and if so, under what conditions?
Outcome of the case:
Firstly, the State Council emphasized that the data retention framework under European law does not call into question the constitutional requirements relating to national security and combating crime.
The State Council then considered that safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Nation, preventing public order offences, combating terrorism and tracking down the perpetrators of criminal offences may not always be guaranteed, under Union law, with a protection equivalent to that provided by the Constitution. It was therefore up to the State Council to ensure that the limits set by the CJEU do not jeopardise these constitutional requirements.
Finally, the State Council ruled that generalised data retention is now justified by the existing threat to national security. It noted that the possibility of accessing this data for combating serious crime has so far made it possible to meet the constitutional requirements involved in preventing public order offences and tracking down the perpetrators of criminal offences (although only the most serious ones can be targeted in this way). However, it ordered the government to regularly reassess the threat to the nation to justify the generalised retention of data and to make the use of such data by the intelligence services subject to the authorisation of an independent authority. It also ruled that the general retention of data obligation was illegal (other than for non-sensitive data: marital status, IP address, accounts and payments) for purposes other than national security.
With regard to the use of data retained for intelligence purposes, the State Council noted that the planned prior control by an independent authority as provided for by the French legal framework is not sufficient, since the opinion issued by the national commission for the supervision of intelligence techniques - Commission nationale de contrôle des techniques de renseignement (CNCTR) before any authorisation is not binding. The State Council ordered the Prime Minister to amend the regulatory framework in order to comply with these requirements within six months.
10. According to Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Union, including the Court of Justice of the European Union, must respect the national identity of the Member States, "inherent in their fundamental political and constitutional structures", as well as "the essential functions of the State, in particular those of ensuring its nationwide integrity, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security", the latter being "the sole responsibility of the Member States". According to Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: "Any limitation in the exercising of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and comply with the essential content of such rights and freedoms. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, limitations may be imposed only if they are necessary and effectively meet public policy objectives recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others". It follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union that the objectives of protecting national security and combating serious crime, which contribute to protecting the rights and freedoms of others, are included in the public policy objectives recognised by the Union, are such as to justify limitations on the rights guaranteed by the Charter under Article 52 thereof, and that, while Article 6 of the Charter, which ensures the right to security, cannot be interpreted as imposing any obligation on public authorities to adopt specific measures to investigate and prosecute criminal offences, Articles 3, 4 and 7 of the Charter, which ensure the right to the integrity of a person, prohibit torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and ensure respect for private and family life, impose positive obligations on the State, including the establishing of rules to allow the effective investigation and prosecution of certain criminal offences. However, the constitutional requirements mentioned in point 9, which apply to areas falling exclusively or essentially within the competence of the Member states by virtue of the Treaties establishing the Union, cannot be regarded as enjoying, under Union law, protection equivalent to that provided by the Constitution.
10. Selon le paragraphe 2 de l'article 4 du traité sur l'Union européenne, il appartient à l'Union, y compris à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, de respecter l'identité nationale des Etats membres, " inhérente à leurs structures fondamentales politiques et constitutionnelles ", ainsi que " les fonctions essentielles de l'Etat, notamment celles qui ont pour objet d'assurer son intégrité territoriale, de maintenir l'ordre public et de sauvegarder la sécurité nationale ", cette dernière restant " de la seule responsabilité des Etats membres ". Aux termes du paragraphe 1 de l'article 52 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne : " Toute limitation de l'exercice des droits et libertés reconnus par la présente Charte doit être prévue par la loi et respecter le contenu essentiel desdits droits et libertés. Dans le respect du principe de proportionnalité, des limitations ne peuvent être apportées que si elles sont nécessaires et répondent effectivement à des objectifs d'intérêt général reconnus par l'Union ou au besoin de protection des droits et libertés d'autrui ". Il ressort de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, d'une part, que les objectifs de protection de la sécurité nationale et de lutte contre la criminalité grave, qui contribuent à la protection des droits et des libertés d'autrui, sont au nombre des objectifs d'intérêt général reconnus par l'Union, comme tels susceptibles de justifier des limitations aux droits garantis par la Charte en vertu de son article 52, et, d'autre part, que si l'article 6 de la Charte, qui garantit le droit à la sûreté, ne saurait être interprété comme imposant aux pouvoirs publics une obligation d'adopter des mesures spécifiques en vue de réprimer des infractions pénales, il découle de ses articles 3, 4 et 7, qui garantissent le droit au respect de l'intégrité de la personne, l'interdiction de la torture et des peines et traitements inhumains ou dégradants et le respect de la vie privée et familiale, des obligations positives à la charge de l'Etat, incluant la mise en place de règles permettant une lutte effective contre certaines infractions pénales. Toutefois, les exigences constitutionnelles mentionnées au point 9, qui s'appliquent à des domaines relevant exclusivement ou essentiellement de la compétence des Etats membres en vertu des traités constitutifs de l'Union, ne sauraient être regardées comme bénéficiant, en droit de l'Union, d'une protection équivalente à celle que garantit la Constitution.
