As a global tech race unfolds, the European Union has actively joined the competition and aimed at securing a technological leadership in areas such as online platforms, AI, big data and virtual worlds. The success of this technological revolution hinges on the quality, reach and adaptability of electronic communications within the EU because electronic communications networks and services provide the essential connectivity needed for the transfer of data, the operation of digital services, and the development of emerging technologies. However, the EU’s electronic communications regime faces challenges in adapting to this technology revolution. Factors such as internal market fragmentation, geopolitical competition from the US and China, and a lack of international regulatory cooperation have impeded the advancement of the EU’s telecommunications industry. These challenges have promoted extensive academic and policy discussions on how to overcome these hurdles and foster a conductive environment for a more advanced EU electronic communications networks and services.

Despite the evident economic and geopolitical significance of the EU’s electronic communications policy, there has been a lack of a systematic investigation. This paper aims to fill this gap by contributing to the growing, yet relatively limited, body of academic literature on the EU’s regime governing electronic communications. Drawing on insights from historical institutionalism, this paper explores the role of major actors, including the Commission, national regulatory authorities and private entrepreneurs, in the evolution of the EU’s electronic communications regime.

This paper explores the adoption of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which is aimed at bolstering media freedom and pluralism in Europe in the digital age. The EMFA was proposed by the European Commission in September 2022 as part of the efforts to strengthen the Union’s democratic resilience, and the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached political agreement on it in December 2023. This paper discusses the legal and policy background surrounding the Commission’s proposal to work towards a better understanding of the legal choices made. It then explores the main legal issues raised by the EMFA. The adoption of the EMFA is not only politically significant for a values-based Union. It is also legally important. To enact the EMFA, the EU institutions had to deal with key issues of EU constitutional law, in particular the principle of conferral, the choice of the appropriate legal basis, the functional boundaries of EU internal market legislation, and the place and role of the Union’s values and fundamental rights in the Union’s legal system. The analysis examines the ways in which the EU institutions were able to put media freedom and pluralism centre stage in what is an internal market legal act, shedding light on the steps this required to address the constraints deriving from the Union’s legal order.

This contribution examines the approach of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to state surveillance in the name of the fight against serious crime. As the Court recently reemphasised in the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána case, there is a need to distinguish between the aims behind surveillance activities. While there is an extensive literature on surveillance for national security, the relatively less stressed surveillance for serious crime warrants closer scrutiny because of its wider applicability and impact on a larger segment of the population.

The scope of CJEU jurisprudence is growing from traditional data retention to other systems such as Anti-Money Laundering and Passenger Name Record systems. These are all systems that are (or used to be) required by European law. However, there is a significant but less explored area of other surveillance systems, such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition or mass GPS tracking. These systems, which were previously outside the scope of European law, have been brought under it with the introduction of the Law Enforcement Directive, which establishes common rules for police and other state authorities in inter alia surveillance operations. Moreover, in these systems, the surveillance is carried out by the state itself, without an intermediary such as a bank in the case of AML systems or an airline in the case of PNR.

The contribution synthesises all three aspects. The core thesis is that the CJEU’s jurisprudence following Digital Rights Ireland is relevant beyond simple data retention schemes. It suggests that the conclusions of the case law apply to a range of mass surveillance mechanisms used for criminal investigations under the Law Enforcement Directive. The key distinguishing factor for the surveillance system compliance with the EU law is the deductibility of private information about individuals. In addition, the article considers whether the CJEU will continue its pro-privacy stance, a matter of considerable importance as the CJEU is currently considering a case (see proceeding under C-57/23) on this very issue with potentially far-reaching implications for police activities across the European Union.

In conclusion, this contribution provides a critical and timely insight into the CJEU’s stance on navigating the complex interplay between state surveillance for criminal investigations and the protection of privacy rights within the EU.