<p>The purpose of this thesis is to study the level of democracy within the European Union (EU). To do so the following issues were examined: How the EU works and the efforts it has made to improve levels of democracy; and the degree to which the EU fulfils the criteria set by Robert Dahl in his theory of polyarchy.</p><p>The study is based on a qualitative text analysis. The focus of the analysis is documents released by the EU that can be connected to democracy, and human and fundamental rights. The theory of polyarchy proposed by Robert Dahl and Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of democracy are the principal theories applied. The thesis also includes theories about democracy within the EU prior to this study.</p><p>The result and conclusion after studying the documents in the light of the theories of Dahl and Schumpeter suggest that the EU could be more democratic than it is at present. The movement towards becoming more democratic is in progress but needs more time. The fundamental criterion, i.e. that citizens should to be able to choose the holders of a particular position, is weak in the EU because there are only general elections to the European Parliament, which is just one of the three main institutions.</p>

No description available.

No description available.

Den här examensuppsatsen behandlar i stort principerna om ömsesidigt förtroende och ömsesidigt erkännande på unionsrättens område för frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa. Uppsatsen identifierar och uppmärksammar ett växande problem i Europa, nämligen att skyddet av grundläggande rättigheter och rättsstatsprincipen inte är en självklarhet inom alla medlemsstaters rättsordningar. Det anförs att denna problematik bygger upp för att en användning av principerna i straffrättsliga samarbeten kan bli problematisk om det inte sker med försiktighet. Med hänsyn till aktuell rättspraxis redogörs för hur EUD ser på den saken. En användning av principerna som är alltför oförsiktig exemplifieras med den föreslagna E-bevisförordningen. Det hela resulterar i en diskussion om hur principerna inom ramen för E-bevisförordningen används respektive hur de borde användas för att uppställa ett tillräckligt skydd för grundläggande rättigheter och rättsstatsprincipen. Slutsatsen som nås i uppsatsen är att E-bevisförordningen borde förändra sin utformning och omformuleras i flera hänseenden inte bara med hänsyn till EUD:s rättspraxis, utan även för att minimera risken för att enskilda lider rättsförluster. / This thesis deals with the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition within the EU’s area of ​​freedom, security and justice (ASJ). The thesis identifies a mounting problem in Europe: the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law is no longer self-evident in all Member States’ legal systems. The thesis then assumes that this may become problematic if the use of the principles in EU criminal law co-operation is not applied in a sensitive and cautious manner. With regard to the current case-law of ECJ, an interpretation of the court’s view on this issue is put forward. The E-evidence regulation proposal is used as an example of a too risky use of the principles in a criminal law co-operation legislation. The thesis then focus on how the principles is used in the E-evidence regulation and how they should be used to include a sufficient protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law. The conclusion is reached that the E-evidence regulation must be amended and, in several respects, improved not only with regard to the case-law of ECJ, but also in order to minimize the risk of individuals suffering legal losses

The purpose of this thesis is to study the level of democracy within the European Union (EU). To do so the following issues were examined: How the EU works and the efforts it has made to improve levels of democracy; and the degree to which the EU fulfils the criteria set by Robert Dahl in his theory of polyarchy. The study is based on a qualitative text analysis. The focus of the analysis is documents released by the EU that can be connected to democracy, and human and fundamental rights. The theory of polyarchy proposed by Robert Dahl and Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of democracy are the principal theories applied. The thesis also includes theories about democracy within the EU prior to this study. The result and conclusion after studying the documents in the light of the theories of Dahl and Schumpeter suggest that the EU could be more democratic than it is at present. The movement towards becoming more democratic is in progress but needs more time. The fundamental criterion, i.e. that citizens should to be able to choose the holders of a particular position, is weak in the EU because there are only general elections to the European Parliament, which is just one of the three main institutions.

No description available.

Since the US National Security Agency’s former contractor Edward Snowden exposed the Agency’s mass surveillance, the EU has been making a series of attempts toward a more safeguarded and stricter path concerning its data privacy protection. On 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) invalidated the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC on the basis of incompatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). After this judgment, the CJEU examined the legality of the Safe Harbour Agreement, which had been the main legal basis for transfers of personal data from the EU to the US under Decision 2000/520/EC. Subsequently, on 6 October 2015, in the case of Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, the CJEU declared the Safe Harbour Decision invalid. The ground for the Court’s judgment was the fact that the Decision enabled interference, by US public authorities, with the fundamental rights to privacy and personal data protection under Article 7 and 8 of the Charter, when processing the personal data of EU citizens. According to the judgment, this interference has been beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate to the protection of national security and the persons concerned were not offered any administrative or judicial means of redress enabling the data relating to them to be accessed, rectified or erased. The Court’s analysis of the Safe Harbour was borne out of the EU Commission’s own previous assessments. Consequently, since the transfers of personal data between the EU and the US can no longer be carried out through the Safe Harbour, the EU legislature is left with the task to create a safer option, which will guarantee that the fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data of the EU citizens will be respected. However, although the EU is the party dictating the terms for these transatlantic transfers of personal data, the current provisions of the US law are able to provide for derogations from every possible renewed agreement unless they become compatible with the EU data privacy law. Moreover, as much business is at stake and prominent US companies are involved in this battle, the pressure toward the US is not only coming from the EU, but some American companies are also taking the fight for EU citizens’ right to privacy and protection of their personal data.