27 Apr 2016

Treatment of classified information before the ECJ

Isabella Oldani

In the post 9/11 context of global terrorism and global counter-terrorism, the question of secrecy, usually grounded in national security-related concerns, has become one of the most interesting legal issues.In the wake of an increasingly transnational terrorism phenomenon, the balancing of security, secrecy and fundamental procedural rights represents an increasing challenge for both the Executive and the judicial authorities.

THE TREATMENT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 

(Dissertation of Isabella Oldani, Università di Trento, 2016, download .pdf file)

 

INTRODUCTION

 

?There is reason to think that as a general matter in times of crisis, we will overestimate our security needs and discount the value of liberty?.[1]

 Introduction

In the post 9/11 context of global terrorism and global counter-terrorism, the question of secrecy, usually grounded in national security-related concerns, has become one of the most interesting legal issues.[2] Today, counterterrorism is characterized by an extensive and ever-increasing reliance on classified intelligence information in order to grant an effective response to an increasingly sophisticated form of transnational terrorism.[3] While it may be argued that an effective counterterrorism response may require a certain degree of secrecy,[4] the use of classified information as grounds for imposing severe legal consequences on individuals or entities, with the preservation of its inherent secrecy, has raised numerous constitutional concerns. When targets started to challenge these measures in courts, the thorny issue of balancing (inter)national security concerns and due process rights inevitably surfaced.[5] The increased involvement of intelligence services in the policing of terrorism prevention entails that in judicial proceedings, most governments employ confidential information taken from intelligence agencies without fully disclosing this information to the persons concerned.[6] This has paved the way for the admission of secret information as evidence in court,[7] which while protecting the confidentiality of intelligence information from security-threatening disclosure, notably reduces the defense rights of the person concerned.[8] Secret evidence is deemed to be inherently unfair, unreliable, undemocratic and liable to undermine the same value it strives to protect- national security. Secrecy claims have sparked tension within the European Union framework, between the highest levels of the Executive and judicial authorities, culminating in trials at European Union Courts and inspiring the development of a set of supranational legal standards.[9] A comparative analysis of the methods deployed by different Member States in dealing with classified material in judicial proceedings will then be necessary in order to evaluate whether their regimes are compliant with the standards set out at the EU level. Specific focus shall be placed on two opposite regimes for dealing with confidential information in courts. The UK system, where a specific mechanism has been devised, enabling the formal use of secret information as evidence in civil courts, and the Italian system, where neither legislation nor judicial practices dealing with national security cases recognize the probative value of secret information.[10] From this comparative analysis, it will appear on the one hand that in Italy, where the only court with access to documents covered by the State secret privilege is the Constitutional Court, the balance scale too often tilts towards the interests of public security, without the establishment of proper counterbalancing mechanisms to prevent abuses of secrecy by the Executive branch. On the other hand, as it currently stands, the United Kingdom system, where sensitive intelligence material is systematically discussed in closed hearings, is rife with shortcomings when safeguards aimed at avoiding security ? threatening leaks of information are examined in the light of the most basic standards of procedural fairness. Thus, it will be interesting to analyze how two regimes (the UK and Italy), which have adopted opposite approaches to the treatment of confidential information in courts, sit uneasily with the rule of law standards elaborated at the EU level. Nonetheless, it should be possible to build up a fully developed procedural system for handling secret evidence whilst safeguarding procedural fairness, through the combination of the emerging EU security jurisprudence and some positive aspects of the UK national experience.

 

(download .pdf file of Dissertation of Isabella Oldani, Università di Trento, 2016; 1.2 Mb)

 

 



[1] David Cole, ?Enemy Aliens?, (2002) 54 Stan.L.Rev., p.955

[2] Martin Scheinin, ?Foreword? in Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law, (Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), p.ix

[3] See Scheinin, supra note 2, p.ix

[4] See Scheinin, supra note 2, p.ix

[5] Gavin Sullivan, ?Secret Justice inside the EU courts?, (2014) available at http://www.aljazeera.com/INDEPTH/OPINION/2014/04/SECRET-JUSTICE-INSIDE-EU-COURT-2014417143255779945.HTML                          

[6] Craig Forcese and Lorne Waldman, ?Seeking Justice in an Unfair Process. Lessons from Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand on the Use of ?Special Advocates? in National Security Proceedings?, August 2007, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law (Common Law Section), p.5

[7] The so-called ?secret evidence?

[8] Policy Department, ?National security and secret evidence in legislation and before the courts: exploring the challenges?, Study for the LIBE Committee, (2014), p.12

[9] See Policy Department, supra note 8, p.58

[10] See Policy Department, supra note 8, p.20

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

INTRODUCTION.. 1

 

Chapter I: COUNTERTERRORISM MEASURES: NATIONAL SECURITY V. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS   3

1.The growth of administrative counterterrorism measures. 3

1.1 The blurring of the distinction between administrative and criminal sanctions  4

2.The importance of intelligence information in fighting terrorism and the need for secrecy  5

2.1. National security as the main rationale for classifying information. 5

2.2.The inherent secrecy of intelligence information. 7

3. The reliance on intelligence information as grounds for restrictive measures  8

3.1.The blurring of the distinction between intelligence and evidence. 9

3.2. Secret evidence is unreliable, liable to weaken national security,   undemocratic, unnecessary and inherently unfair 12

4. Overview of the treatment of secret evidence at the international and EU level 15

4.1.International good practices. 15

4.2.European Union secrecy regulations. 19

 

Chapter II: EUROPEAN LEGAL STANDARDS.. 25

1.Secret evidence under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention of Human Rights: due process rights and their exceptions. 25

2.The European Court of Human Rights? case-law.. 29

2.1.Restrictions of the rights of the defense and the need for counterbalancing     procedures  29

2.2. The system of special advocates as a possible counterbalancing mechanism: the scope of ?A-type? disclosure and its difficult application. 31

2.3.Immigration cases and the need for ?some forms of adversarial proceedings? 35

3.General Court and European Court of Justice?s case-law.. 36

3.1.Deportation proceedings: the ZZ case and the obligation to disclose the essence of the reasons for a decision refusing entry  37

3.2.Sanctions and asset-freezing measures: the Kadi saga and OMPI/PMOI 44

3.2.1.UN-based sanctions: the Kadi saga. 44

3.2.2. EU autonomous sanctions: the OMPI/PMOI case. 57

4.New Procedural Rules of the General Court. 64

4.1. Filling the legislative gap in the ?treatment of information or material pertaining to the security of the Union or of its Member States or to the conduct of their international relations? 64

4.2. The shortcomings of the New Procedural Rules. 67

 

Chapter III: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS GOVERNING THE USE - OR MISUSE - OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN COURTS.. 71

1. The UK system of special advocates. 71

1.1.The system of special advocates as an alternative to Public Interest  Immunity  72

1.2. Closed Material Procedures before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission  73

1.3.The use of special advocates: from immigration cases (1997) to its expansion in all areas of civil law (2013) 78

1.3.1.The rise of questions of legality. 80

1.3.2. The Justice and Security Act: its flawed premises and its flawed provisions  83

1.4. Closed Material Procedures and the need for a minimum level of disclosure  89

1.5.Restrictions on special advocates? ability to preserve the adversary nature  of Closed Material Procedures  98

2.The Italian State secret privilege. 108

2.1. The State secret privilege from its origins to Law 124/2007. 108

2.2.The State secret privilege in criminal proceedings: the Abu Omar case and the self-restraint of the Constitutional Court 114

2.3.The State secret privilege in administrative proceedings: expulsion cases. 122

2.3.1.The right to access to administrative documents under Law 241/1990. 122

2.3.2. State secrets as grounds for expulsion decisions. 125

 

Chapter IV:THE WAY FORWARD: HOW THE NEED FOR SECRECY SHOULD BE MANAGED BY EU COURTS   135

 

CONCLUSION.. 151

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 157

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 ?He who decides something without hearing the other side is not just, even if he makes a just decision?.[1]

 

In the wake of an increasingly transnational terrorism phenomenon, the balancing of security, secrecy and fundamental procedural rights represents an increasing challenge for both the Executive and the judicial authorities.

In a context where the counterterrorism policy pursued both at a national, supranational and international level is mainly based on the work of intelligence services, the use of secret evidence in courts may be unavoidable in order to respond to legitimate security concerns which emerge with the disclosure of information in open courts. However, while it is a well-rooted principle in the European constitutional framework that in non-criminal trials, overriding concerns relating to the security of the European Union or of its Member States or the conduct of their international relations, may justify restrictions on full disclosure, the increasing reliance on intelligence information as the basis for restrictive measures has inevitably raised serious constitutional concerns when secrecy claims are invoked to obstruct investigations and judicial accountability on Government action.[2]

 In a context where fundamental constitutional rights are subject to a systematic threat of illegitimate compressions in the name of security, the EU courts have opted for a relatively strong standard of protection for the rights of the defense and of judicial redress, enshrined in the EU Charter and in the European Convention of Human Rights.[3] On the basis of emergent EU security jurisprudence, a fully developed procedural system can be devised at the supranational judicial level in order to remedy the issues of fairness, reliability and accountability raised by non ? disclosure. In the words of the European Court of Justice, there are two conditions which should accompany any limitation on full and precise disclosure on the grounds for restrictive measures.

 Firstly, the alleged need for secrecy must be proved by the claiming authority and then be subjected to a meaningful and independent judicial scrutiny by the Court which will thus require access to all the evidence and grounds underpinning the contested decision.[4] While the preclusion of communicating some grounds is not as such a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, non--disclosure does not imply that confidential information is immune from judicial review. Therefore effective judicial scrutiny is  essential in preventing possible abuses of secrecy perpetrated by the Executive branch: ?in delimiting the legitimate parameters of national security claims and making sure they are not used as a cover-up for unlawful practices?, independent judicial oversight is ?an absolute requirement to restrain the discretionary powers given to the Executive and to the alliance of intelligence services at the European/transnational level?.[5] Given the increasingly transnational nature of terrorism,[6] the supranational courts are well-positioned to promote and consolidate an effective implementation of fundamental supranational principles.[7] Supranational courts should thus refrain from taking the same deferential approach too often adopted by domestic courts in relation to state secret claims and uphold the rule of law principles with increasing vigilance. The trust-based relationship between the judiciary on the one hand and the Executives and the intelligence communities on the other is in fact clearly incompatible with the necessary independence of the judiciary as one of the strongest safeguards of the liberties of a democratic society:[8] ?the ability to effectively vindicate one?s rights through the justice system is a vital element in a modern democracy. It ensures that justice, in its broadest sense, can be done, and it provides an essential check on executive action?.[9]

If then the court is sufficiently satisfied that State security reasons stand in the way of a full and precise disclosure of those grounds, the competent court, and this is the second condition, must dispose of techniques and procedures which strike the appropriate balance between, the Executive?s legitimate interest in preserving the confidentiality of the nature and sources of information relied on for the contested decision, and the requirements of procedural rights.[10] To that end, ?in order to enable the person concerned to contest the grounds on which the decision in question is based and to make submissions on the evidence relating to the decision and, therefore, to put forward an effective defense?, in any event, the person concerned must be provided at least with the essence of the reasons underpinning the restrictive decision.[11] Beyond the gist requirement however, no further guidance is given by the Court on what sort of accommodating techniques should be adopted in order to reconcile the demands of procedural rights with the need to safeguard public security.[12]

Therefore a new procedural system should be urgently devised, both at the levels of the General Court and  the European Court of Justice, in order to protect the person concerned from unlawful non-disclosure and at the same time reassure EU and national authorities to produce intelligence material to the European Courts. In a context where the application of only the PII/Article 67 procedure leaves the court ill-equipped to deal with the hard choice cases raised by the use of secret evidence and where the new procedural rules of the General Court do not provide a sufficient measure of procedural fairness, a UK-style closed material procedure seems to be the best way forward to protect the confidentiality of the information at stake, whilst allowing special advocates to act on behalf of the defendant.[13]

As a general principle however, a hearing without full knowledge will never entirely meet the principles of fundamental justice, especially when the proceedings may lead to heavy interferences with life and liberty. Departure from conventional full fair hearing requirements  in closed proceedings should be limited to those circumscribed areas where traditionally there has been a genuine need for resorting to intelligence material[14] and only after having made sure that the sensitive information at stake cannot be acquired by means of non-secret methods.[15] Moreover, even in those limited areas where closed material procedures are applicable, said procedures should be used strictly as a measure of last resort, after having accurately ascertained that less rights-impairing alternatives, such as the PII/Article 67 process, cannot be deployed without making the case untriable against the interests of justice.[16]

However, in the light of the several shortcomings of the current UK system, the introduction of the special advocate system in Luxembourg would require fundamental changes as well as substantial adaptations of the procedure to the EU framework. Lifting constraints on communication between the person concerned and the special advocate after the latter has been served with the closed files[17] and providing the defendant with enough information to enable him/her to give instructions to the special advocates about how the allegations adduced against him/her might be rebutted,[18] represent the two major changes capable of increasing the overall fairness of the UK-style closed material procedure. Indeed on the one hand foreign experiences prove how, with appropriate guidance, it should be possible to loosen the current bars on communication between the special advocate and the person concerned whilst securing material regarded as confidential by the Executive.[19] On the other hand, the insistence of both the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights on the necessity to provide the person concerned with at least the essence of the grounds against him/her, shows how this knowledge represents a crucial ?aspect of the minimum adversary nature of the proceedings?[20] which should always go hand-in-hand with complete and independent judicial oversight.

 Although it is impossible to dispel all doubts of unfairness through the implementation of a UK-style special advocate mechanism, the adoption of this system may go some way in preserving the tradition of open and natural justice on which any democracy is built, by protecting the excluded parties from significant injustice.[21] This however should not obscure the fact that this system is a mere attempt at accommodating national security requirements within a framework of  procedural fairness and as such, should be confined to those exceptional cases where there are genuine and compelling national security concerns.[22]

Overall, what emerges from European jurisprudence is that while States have a positive obligation to protect the life and liberty of the people under their jurisdiction, there are some fundamental ?human rights standards which must be secured to everyone?. ?Everyone means everyone?. ?States are not allowed to combat terrorism at all costs? but they should do all what can reasonably be expected from them to protect the lives of their citizens without however resorting to methods capable of undermining the same values they strive to protect:[23] ?one does not defend a society and its principle by undermining or dismantling them?.[24] In this context, the supranational courts have proven their awareness of the ?immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence?,[25] recognizing that restrictions on a fully adversarial procedure can be admitted. On the other hand, they have also countered attempts of several States to lower their standards of human rights protection[26] by laying out an irreducible minimum which shall always be provided to individuals concerned, however threatening their conduct might be.

When the use of secret evidence seems inevitable, a combination of complete and independent judicial review, gist requirement and assistance of special advocates may represent an effective procedural path to ensure that anyone who is affected by restrictive measures adopted in the name of national or international security, is granted sufficient protection against arbitrariness.



[1] Seneca, Medea (I A.D.)

[2] See Policy Department, supra note 8, p.58

[3] See Policy Department, supra note 8, p.58

[4]ZZ at paras.58 ? 62

[5] See Policy Department, supra note 8, pp.70-71

[6] See Garlicki, supra note 34, p.323: ?The general process of globalization led not only to globalization of terrorist activity (we are thus far away from the ?old good times? when terrorism remained mostly confined to particular countries), but also to the need for a global response. Consequentially, the ?war on terror? became, to a considerable extent, detached from the national constitutional context?.

[7] See Policy Department, supra note 8, p. 9

[8] See Green Paper, supra note 38, p.1

[9] See Green Paper, supra note 38, p.1

[10]ZZ at para.64

[11] Ibid. para.65

[12] See de Boer, supra note 81, p.1250

[13] See Williams, supra note 563, p.24

[14] See Williams, supra note 563, p.28

[15] See Policy Department, supra note 8, p.71

[16] See Williams, supra note 563, p.28

[17] See Williams, supra note 563, p.28

[18]A at para.220: ?The Court further considers that the special advocate could perform an important role in counterbalancing the lack of full disclosure and the lack of a full, open, adversarial hearing by testing the evidence and putting arguments on behalf of the detainee during the closed hearings. However, the special advocate could not perform this function in any useful way unless the detainee was provided with sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions to the special advocate?.

[19] See Nineteenth report, supra note 603, para.205

[20] See de Boer, supra note 81, p.1261

[21] See Evidence of Mr Nicol to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth report supra note 603, Q 38: ?I would add something on the role of Special Advocates. I see it as mitigating the unfairness which is inherent in a system where the appellant, one party to the proceedings, does not know all the material that they are supposed to be meeting or answering. That is inherent. It is irreducible in the sense that, as long as the appellant does not know it, there is always going to be the fertile possibility that explanations or responses that could be given are not, because that material has not been disclosed to the only person who could provide them. The system of Special Advocates can never overcome that irreducible element of unfairness but, having accepted that, I think that the functions that we try to perform can at least mitigate it and is better than not having a system where there is a partisan representative. We are not like friends of the court, amici curiae; we are partisan. We partisan on the part of the person whose voice is otherwise not going to be heard in the proceedings and in relation to material which is otherwise going to be put before the Commission with nobody saying anything contrary to the Government?s view?. Emphasis added.; See also MH and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 2525 (Admin) at para.36: Despite all the limitations on the ability of [special advocates] to achieve substantive justice, the experience of those (?) who have seen the [special advocate] system in action demonstrates that that it provides a benefit certainly favor in the field of submissions about disclosure. What is disclosed after [a special advocate?s] intervention is almost always considerably more than the executive proposed to give before it. In nearly ten years experience as a special advocate, I cannot recall an occasion when absolutely nothing was added to the [defendant's] state of knowledge after the disclosure process was complete. I am aware that that experience is not unique?.

[22] See Ip, supra note 247, p.741

[23]ECtHR  Saadi v Italy, Appl. N. 37201/06, Judgment of 28 February 2008, concurring opinion of Judge Myjer, joined by Judge Zagrebelsky: ?Indeed, the Convention (and protocols thereto) contain legal human rights standards which must be secured to everyone within the jurisdiction of the High Contracting parties (Article 1). Everyone means everyone: not just terrorists and the like. The States also have a positive obligation to protect the life of their citizens. They should also have a positive obligation to protect the life of their citizens. They should so all that could be reasonably expected from them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life

[24] Mike Dodd, ?Secret trials are wrong?, (2014) 25(3) B.J.R., p.9

[25]Chahal at para.79

[26] Barbara Concolino, ?Divieto di tortura e sicurezza nazionale: il no della Corte europea dei diritti dell?uomo al bilanciamento nei casi di espulsione di presunti terroristi?, (2008) 3 Dir.pubbl.comp.eur., p.1109

 

 

 

 

(download .pdf file of Dissertation of Isabella Oldani, Università di Trento, 2016)

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Abu Omar, (2007) ?This is how they kidnapped me from Italy?, Chicago Tribune, available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-cialetter-story-story.html

 

Alì, A. ?Il diritto dell?Unione Europea e la tutela della sicurezza nazionale degli Stati membri. Osservazioni a margine di alcuni casi esaminati dalla Corte di Giustizia dell?Unione Europea?, in Intelligence e interesse nazionale, edited by Umberto Gori and Luigi Martino (Roma: Aracne editrice, 2015), pp.589 ? 600

 

Amnesty International, ?Left in the Dark: the Use of Secret Evidence in the United Kingdom?, (2012)

 

Arconzo, G. and Pellizzone,I. (2012) ?Il Segreto di Stato nella Giurisprudenza della Corte Costituzionale e della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell?Uomo?, 1 Rivista Associazione Italiana dei Costituzionalisti, pp.1-26

 

«Article 6: The right to a fair trial », (2012) Human Rights Review, available at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_6.pdf, pp.217-258

 

Azarov, V. and Ebert, F. C. (2009) ?All done and dusted? Reflections on the EU standard of judicial protection against UN blacklisting after the ECJ?s Kadi Decision?, 5(1) Hanse Law Review, pp.99-114

 

Balbo, P. (2003) ?Il diritto alla difesa, il ricorso e le modalità di comunicazione dei provvedimenti che riguardano i cittadini extracomunitari?, available at http://www.diritto.it/materiali/processuale_penale/balbo.html

 

Bin, R. (2007)  ?Democrazia e Terrorismo?, Forum dei Quaderni Costituzionali, available at: http://www.forumcostituzionale.it/wordpress/images/stories/pdf/nuovi%20pdf/Paper/0027_bin.pdf

 

Boon, A. and Nash, S. (2006) ?Special Advocacy: Political Expediency and Legal Roles in Modern Judicial Systems?,  9 (1) Legal Ethics, pp.101 - 124

 

Burgess, J. P. (2009) ?There is No European Security, Only European Securities?, 44(3) Cooperation and Conflict, pp.309 ? 328

 

Canada, Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act, Fundamental Justice in Extraordinary Times, February 2007, available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/391/anti/rep/rep02feb07-e.htm

 

Carrera, S. and Atger, A. F. (2009) ?Implementation of Directive 2004/38 in the context of EU Enlargement. A proliferation of different forms of citizenship??, CEPS Special Report, available at http://aei.pitt.edu/10758/1/1827.pdf

Canestrini, N. (2004) ?Sull?espulsione c.d.ministeriale ex art.13 D.Lgs.286/98?, available at www.altalex.com

Canestrini, N. and Guarini, G. (2015) ?Segreto di Stato, accesso agli atti, espulsione ministeriale?, available at www.canestrinilex.com

 

CCBE Comments on the Draft Rules of Procedure of the General Court, 16 July 2014

 

Centonze, S. L?espulsione dello straniero, (Padova: CEDAM, 2006)

 

Chandran, A. (2015) ?The Classified Information Procedures Act in the Age of Terrorism: Remodelling CIPA in an Offense-Specific Manner?, 64 Duke Law Journal, pp.1411 ? 1451

 

Cole, D. (2002) ?Enemy Aliens?, 54 Stanford Law Review, pp.953-1004

 

Cole D. and Vladeck, S. I. ?Comparative advantages: secret evidence and ?cleared? counsel? in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada? in Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law, edited by David Cole, Federico Fabbrini, Arianna Vadeschi (Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), pp.173 - 192

 

Concolino, B. (2008) ?Divieto di tortura e sicurezza nazionale: il no della Corte europea dei diritti dell?uomo al bilanciamento nei casi di espulsione di presunti terroristi?, 3 Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo, pp.1109 - 1117

 

Constitutional Affairs Committee, ?The operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the use of Special Advocates?, Seventh Report of Session 2004-05

 

Curtin, D. M. (2011) ?Top Secret Europe?, Inaugural lecture on appointment to the chair of Professor of European Law at the University of Amsterdam, available at: http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/103309

 

Curtin, M. D. ?Top Secret Intelligence in Europe: A Tipping Point in Luxembourg??, 21 October 2012, available at http://acelg.blogactive.eu/2012/10/21/top-secret-intelligence-in-europe-a-tipping-point-in-luxembourg/

 

Curtin, M. D. ?Secrecy regulation by the European Union inside out?, in Secrecy, national security and the vindication of constitutional law, edited by David Cole, Federico Fabbrini, Arianna Vadeschi (Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), pp.302 ? 321

 

Cuyvers, A. (2014) ? ?Give me one good reason?: The unified standard of review for sanctions after Kadi II?, 51 Common Market Law Review, pp.1759 ? 1788

 

Danisi, C. (2011) ?State Secrets, Impunity and Human Rights Violations: Prosecution Restricted in The Abu Omar Case?, 7(3) Essex Human Rights Review, Special Issue 2011 on Protecting Human Rights while Countering

Terrorism, pp.188-198

 

D?Ascia, L. Diritto degli Stranieri e immigrazione. Percorsi Giurisprudenziali, (Milano: Giuffré Editore, 2009)

 

de Boer, N. (2014) ?Secret evidence and due process rights under EU law: ZZ?, 51 Common Market Law Review, pp.1235 ? 1262

 

Denti, D. (2008) ?Administrative Law in Sweden and Italy: a Comparison?,  available at: https://www.academia.edu/896258/Administrative_Law_in_Sweden_and_in_Italy_a_comparison

 

Di Filippo, M. (2008) ?La Libera Circolazione dei Cittadini Comunitari e l?Ordinamento Italiano: (Poche) Luci e (Molte) Ombre nell?Attuazione della Direttiva 2004/38/CE?, (2008) 2 Rivista di diritto Internazionale, pp.420-448

 

Dinah Rose QC, Uncorrected Transcript of oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 24 January 2012

 

Dodd, M. (2014) ?Secret trials are wrong?, 25(3) British Journalism Review, pp.7-9

 

Dyers, C. ?Government Prepares to Unveil Changes to Anti-Terror Laws? The Guardian, 17 January 2005, available at::http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jan/17/terrorism.ukcrime

 

English, R. (2011) ?Secret evidence v open justice: the current state of play?, available at:  http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/07/17/secret-evidence-v-open-justice-the-current-state-of-play/

 

Explanatory Memorandum from the Convention, CONVENT 49 of 11 Oct. 2000, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/04473_en.pdf

 

Fabbrini, F. (2010) ?Understading the Abu Omar case: The Secret Privilege on a Comparative perspective?, World Congress of the International Association of Constitutional Law ? Workshop No.6:?The Rule of Law in the Age of Terrorism?, pp.1-30

 

Fabbrini, F. ?Global sanctions, state secrets and supranational review: seeking due process in an interconnected world? in Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law, edited by David Cole, Federico Fabbrini, Arianna Vadeschi (Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), pp.284 - 301

 

Fanchiotti, V. (2009) ?Stato di diritto e Ragioni di Stato: il caso Abu Omar e la Consulta?, 3 Questione Giustizia, pp.7- 22

 

Forcese, C. and Waldman, L. ?Seeking Justice in an Unfair Process. Lessons from Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand on the Use of ?Special Advocates? in National Security Proceedings?, August 2007,  University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law (Common Law Section)

 

Forwood, N.J. ?Closed Evidence in Restrictive Measures Cases: A Comparative Perspective? in Of Courts and Constitutions, edited by Kieran Bradley, Noel Travers and Anthony Whelan (Oxford; Portland: Hart Publishing, 2014), pp. 87-109

 

Galetta, D. U. (2014) ?Transparency and Access to Public Sector Information in Italy: A Proper Revolution??, 6(2) Italian Journal of Public Law, pp.213-240

 

Galloway, D. (2014) ?Classifying Secrets in the EU?, 52(3) Journal of Common Market Studies, pp.668 - 683

 

Garlicki, L. ?Concluding remarks? in Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional law, edited by David Cole, Federico Fabbrini, Arianna Vadeschi (Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), pp.322 ? 337

 

Ginsborg, L. and Scheinin, M. (2011) ?You Can?t Always Get What You Want: The Kadi II Conondrum and the Security Council 1267 Terrorist Sanctions Regime?, Essex Human Rights Review., pp.7-19

 

Giupponi, T. F. (2009) ?Servizi di informazione e segreto di Stato nella legge n.124/127?, Forum Quaderni Costituzionali, available at http://www.forumcostituzionale.it/wordpress/images/stories/pdf/documenti_forum/paper/0161_giupponi.pdf, pp.1-48

 

Giupponi, T. F. and Fabbrini, F. (2010) ?Intelligence agencies and the State secret privilege: the Italian experience?, 4(3) International Journal of Constitutional Law, pp.443 ? 466

 

Government Response to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee?s Report into the Operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Use of Special Advocates, June 2005

 

Guella, F. (2013) ?La disclosure nell?effettività della tutela giurisdizionale e le ragioni ?riservate? di sicurezza nazionale nell?allontanamento dei cittadini stranieri?, 4 Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo, pp.1293-1302

 

Harten, G. V. (2009) ?Weaknesses of adjudication in the face of secret evidence?, 13 The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, pp.1-27

 

Hickman, T. ?Turning out the lights? The Justice and Security Act 2013?, June 2013, UK Const. L. Blog, available at http://ukconstitutionallaw.org

 

HM Government, ?Justice and Security?, Green Paper, October 2011

 

Horne, A. ?Special Advocates and Closed Material Procedures?, 25 June 2012, Home Affairs Section

 

Inkster, N. ?Balancing Secrecy with Openness and Accountability?, 21 November 2011, International Institute for Strategic Studies

 

Ip, J. (2008)?The Rise and Spread of Special Advocate?, (2008) Public Law, pp. 717-741

 

Iyengar, S. et al., (2013) ?A Legal Guide to Immigration Detention in Italy. An English Overview of the Italian, European and international legal framework that governs immigration detention in Italy?, International University College of Turin, Human Rights and Migration Law Clinic, available athttp://www.iuctorino.it/sites/default/files/docs/GuideToImmigDetInItaly_IUC_April2013.pdf

 

Jackson, J. (2013) ?Justice, Security and the Right to a Fair Trial: Is the Use of Secret Evidence Ever Fair??, Public Law, pp.720-736

 

Jenks, C, and Jensen, E. T. (2010) ?All Human Rights are Equal, but some are more Equal than Others: the Extraordinary Rendition of a Terror Suspect in Italy, the NATO SOFA, and Human Rights?, 1 Harvard National Security Journal, pp.171 ? 202

 

Jenkins, D. (2011) ?There and Back Again: the Strange Journey of Special Advocates and Comparative Law Methodology?, 42 Columbia Human Rights Law Review, pp.279 -355

 

Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Justice and Security Green Paper Written Evidence, Letter from the Chair, to Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, January 1999, available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/Written%20Evidence%20Volume%20v6.pdf

 

Joint Committee on Human Rights, ?Counter-terrorism policy and Human Rights: 28 days, intercept and post-charge questioning?, Nineteenth report of Session 2006-07

 

Joint Committee on Human Rights, ?Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Sixteenth Report): Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2010?, Ninth Report of Session 2009-10

 

Joint Committee on Human Rights, ?The Justice and Security Green Paper?, Twenty ? fourth Report of Session 2010-12

 

JUSTICE, « Secret Evidence », June 2009, available at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/uk-justice-secret-evidence-report.pdf

 

Justice and Security Green Paper, response to Consultation from Special Advocates, 16 December 2011

 

Kavanagh, A. (2010) ?Special Advocates, Control Orders and the Right to a Fair Trial?, 73 (5) The Modern Law Review, pp.824 ? 857

 

Knights,S. ?Case Comment : ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-300/11)?, 20 June 2013, available at http://eutopialaw.com/2013/06/20/CASE-COMMENT-ZZ-V-SECRETARY-OF-STATE-FOR-THE-HOME-DEPARTMENT-C-30011/

 

Lang, A. and  Nascimbene, B. (2007) ?L?attuazione in Italia della direttiva 2004/38/CE sulla libera circolazione dei cittadini dell?Unione Europea?, 2 Diritto Immigrazione e Cittadinanza, pp.43-63

 

Lester, M.(2013) ?UK Supreme Court quashes Order against Bank Mellat? http://europeansanctions.com/2013/06/20/uk-supreme-court-quashes-order-against-bank-mellat/

 

Lester, M. (2013) ?First ever Closed Hearing in the UK Supreme Court ? Bank Mellat?s Case? (2013) http://europeansanctions.com/2013/03/21/first-ever-closed-hearing-in-the-uk-supreme-court-bank-mellats-case/

 

Lester, M. (2014) ?Draft European Court Rules Propose Secret Hearings? (2014) available at:http://europeansanctions.com/2014/04/06/draft-european-court-rules-for-secret-hearings/

 

Lester, M. (2015) ?New EU Court Rules to be Adopted without UK Approval?, available at http://europeansanctions.com/2015/01/23/new-eu-court-rules-to-be-adopted-without-uk-approval/

 

Li, H.?Closed Material Procedure in Civil Proceedings?, (2013) Laws 546 Research Paper, Victoria University of Wellington, Faculty of Law

 

Lord Brown, Final debate on the Justice and Security Act (2013), available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130326-0002.htm#13032671000268

 

Marrone, A. ?Il nomos del Segreto di Stato? in Nuovi profili del segreto di Stato e dell?Attività di Intelligence, edited by Giulio Illuminati (Torino: Giappichelli, 2010), pp.1-52

 

McNamara L. and Lock, D.?Closed Material Procedures under the Justice and Security Act 2013. A Review of the First Report by the Secretary of State?, August 2014, Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law

 

Messineo, F. (2009) ? ?Extraordinary Renditions? and State Obligations to Criminalize and Prosecute Torture in the Light of the Abu Omar case in Italy?, 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice, pp.1023-1044

 

Milieu Ltd. and Europa Institute, (2008) ?Conformity Study for Italy. Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States?

 

Murphy, C. (2012) ?Secret Evidence in EU Security Law: Special Advocates before the Court of Justice?, (2012) Centre of European Law, King?s College London, available at https://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/research/centres/european/research/CELWPEL022012FINAL.pdf

 

Murphy, C. ?European Court of Justice grapples with secret evidence in UK immigration case?, 14 June 2013, available at http://ukhumarightsblog.com/2013/06/14/european-court-of-justice-grapples-with-secret-evidence-in-uk-immigration-case-dr-cian-murphy/#more-18765

 

Murphy, C. (2013) ?Counter-Terrorism and the Culture of Legality: The Case of Special Advocates?, 24 King?s Law Journal, pp.19-37

 

Nascimbene, B. Diritto degli Stranieri, (Padova: CEDAM, 2004)

 

Ojanen, T. ?Administrative counter ? terrorism measures ? a strategy to circumvent human rights in the fight against terrorism?? in Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law, edited by David Cole, Federico Fabbrini, Arianna Vadeschi (Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), pp.249 -267

 

Oxford Human Rights Hub,  ?Justice and Security Act 2013: Impact on Open Justice and Trial Rights?, available at  http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/justice-and-security-act-2013-impact-on-open-justice-and-trial-rights/

 

Pace, A. (2008) ?L?apposizione del segreto di Stato nei principi costituzionali e nella legge n.124 del 2007?, Giurisprudenza Costituzionale

 

Pizzetti, F. G. (2014) ?Il più recente orientamento della corte costituzionale nel caso Abu Omar: novità sul segreto di stato??, 6 Processo penale e Giustizia, pp.129- 138

 

Policy Department, ?The Right of Citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union?, (2009)

 

Policy Department, ?Developing an EU Internal Security Strategy, fighting terrorism and organized crime?, (2011)

 

Policy Department, ?National security and secret evidence in legislation and before the courts: exploring the challenges?, Study for the LIBE Committee (2014)

 

Rancan, M. G. (2015) ?Prove ?confidenziali? quando è in gioco la sicurezza dell?Unione?, available at http://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/prove-confidenziali-quando-e-in-gioco-la-sicurezza-dell-unione_28-01-2015.php

 

Rankin, M. (1990) ?The security Intelligence Review Committee?, 3 Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Policy, pp.173 -197

Roach, K. (2010) ?The Eroding Distinction between Intelligence and Evidence in Terrorism Investigations?, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228192313_The_Eroding_Distinction_between_Intelligence_and_Evidence_in_Terrorism_Investigations

 

Roach, K. (2012) ?Secret Evidence and its Alternatives?, SSRN Electronic Journal, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228162319_Secret_Evidence_and_its_Alternatives

Roach, K. ?Managing secrecy and its migration in a post ? 9/11 world?, in Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional law, edited by David Cole, Federico Fabbrini, Arianna Vadeschi (Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), pp.115 - 132

 

Sagar, R. (2007) ?On Combating the Abuse of State Secrecy?, 15(4) Journal of Political Philosophy, pp.404 - 427

 

Salgado,R. P. (1988) ?Government Secrets, Fair trial, and the Classified Information procedures Act?, 98 Yale Law Journal., pp.427 - 446

Scheinin, M. ?Foreword? in Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law, edited by David Cole, Federico Fabbrini, Arianna Vadeschi (Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing: 2013), pp.ix ? xi

 

Seneca, Medea (I A.D.)

 

Shirlow, E. (2014) ?Taking Stock: Assessing the Implications of the Kadi Saga for International Law and the Law of the European Union?, (2014) 15(2) MelbourneJournal of International Law, pp.1-26

 

Stone, G. and Marshall, W. ?Secrecy, the Enemy of Democracy?, The Chicago Tribune, 17 December 2006, available at: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-12-17/news/0612170458_1_secrecy-enemy-cripples

 

Sullivan, J. (2014) ?Closed Material Procedures and the Right to a Fair Trial?, 29 Maryland Journal of International Law, pp.269 ? 292

 

Sullivan, G. (2014) ?Secret Justice inside the EU courts?, available at http://www.aljazeera.com/INDEPTH/OPINION/2014/04/SECRET-JUSTICE-INSIDE-EU-COURT-2014417143255779945.HTML

 

Thompson, D. F. (1999) ?Democratic Secrecy?, 114(2) Political Science Quarterly, pp.181-193

 

Tomkins, T. (2011) ?National Security and the Due Process of Law?, Current Legal Problems, pp.1-39

 

Travi, A. Lezioni di Giustizia Amministrativa, 11th ed., (Torino: Giappichelli Editore, 2014)

 

Tridimas, T. (2009) ?Terrorism and the ECJ: Empowerment and democracy in the EC legal order?, 34 European Law Review, pp.103 - 126

 

Turner, S. and Schulhofer, S. J. (2005) ?The Secrecy problem in Terrorism Trials?, Liberty & National Security Project, Brennan Center For Justice at NYU School of Law, available at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/publications/20050000.TheSecrecyProbleminTerrorismTrials.pdf

 

Vadeschi, A. (2012) ?Il segreto di Stato tra tradizione e innovazione: novità legislative e recenti evoluzioni giurisprudenziali?, 3 Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo, pp.978- 1012

 

Vadeschi, A. (2014) ?Il Segreto di Stato resta senza giudice?, 1 Giurisprudenza Costituzionale, pp.394 - 403

 

Vitskaukas, D. and Dikov, G. ?Protecting the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights?, Council of Europe 2012, available at www.coe.int

 

Williams, J.R. (2014) ?Crossing the Rubicon by Transporting Secret Justice across to Europe: Closed Material Procedure in the UK and EU Courts?, 6 Gray?s Inn Student Law Journal, pp.3-31

 

 

European Court of Justice?s case-law

 

Case C-294/83 Les vertes v European Parliament, Judgment of 23 April 1986

 

Case C?387/05 Commission v Italy [2009] ECR I-11831, Judgment of 15 December 2009

ZZ

 

C-300/11 ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Opinion of the Advocate General Bot of 12 September 2012

 

Court of Justice of the European Union, Press release No. 70/13, Luxembourg, 4 June 2013, Judgment in Case C-300/11 ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department

 

Case C-300/11 ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013]ECR I-0000, Judgment of 4 June 2013

 

Kadi:

 

Case T-315/01 Kadi v. Council and Commission, [2005] ECR II-3649, Judgment of 21 September 2005

 

Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR I-6351, Judgment of 3 September 2008

 

General Court of the European Union, Press release No. 95/10, Luxembourg, 30 September 2010, Judgment in Case T-85/09 Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Commission

 

Case T-85/09, Kadi v. Commission [2010] ECR II-5177, Judgment of 30 September 2010

 

Appeal Brought by the European Commission against the Judgment of the General Court in case T-85/09, 2011 O.J. (C 72) 9; 2011 O.J. (C 72) 9 (EU Council appeal); 2011 O.J. (C 72) 10 (UK appeal)

 

Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P & C-595/10 P, Commission and Others v Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Judgment of 18 July 2013

 

Ayadi:

 

Case T?253/02 Ayadi v Council, Judgment of 12 July 2006

 

Joined Cases C-399/06 P and C-403/06 PAyadi v Council and Commission Cases, Judgment of 3 December 2009

 

Case C?183/12 P Ayadi v Commission, Judgment of 6 June 2013

 

Case T-527/09 RENV Ayadi v European Commission, Judgment of 14 April 2015

 

OMPI

 

Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du Peuple d?Iran v Council [2006] E.C.R. II-4665, Judgment of 12 December 2006

 

Case T-256/07 People?s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council [2008] ECR II-0000, Judgment of 23 October 2008

 

Court of the First Instance, Press release No. 84/08, 4 December 2008, Judgment in case T-284/08 People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

 

Case T-284/08 People?s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council [2008] ECR I-3487, Judgment of 4 December 2008

 

C-27/09 French Republic v People?s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston of 14 July 2011

 

Case C-27/09 P French Republic v. People?s Mojahedin Organization of Iran [2011] ECR I-0000, Judgment of 21 December 2011

 

 

European Court of Human Rights? case-law

 

ECtHR Ireland v United Kingdom, Appl. N. 5310/71, Judgment of 18 January 1978

 

ECtHR Ruiz-Mateos v Spain, Appl. No. 12952/87, Judgment of 23 June 1993

 

ECtHR Foucher v France, Appl. No. 22209, Judgment of 18 March 1995

 

ECtHR Doorson v the Netherlands, Appl.No.20524/92, Judgment of 26 March 1996

 

ECtHR Chahal v the United Kingdom, Appl. No. 22414/93, Judgment of 15 November 1996

 

ECtHR Jasper v the United Kingdom, Appl. No. 27052/95, Judgment of 16 February 2000

 

ECtHR Rowe and Davis v the United Kingdom, Appl. No 28901/95, Judgment of 16 February 2000

 

ECtHR Dowsett v the United kingdom, Appl. No. 39482/98, Judgment of 24 June 2003

 

ECtHR Edwards and Lewis v the United Kingdom, Appl.Nos.39647/98 and 40461/98, Judgment of 27 October 2004

 

ECtHR Saadi v Italy, Appl. N. 37201/06, Judgment of 28 February 2008

 

ECtHR C.G. and Others v Bulgaria, Appl.No.1365/07, Judgment of 24 April 2008

 

ECtHR A and Others v the United Kingdom, Appl. No. 3455/05, Judgment of 19 February 2009

 

ECtHR Raza v Bulgaria, Appl. No. 31465/08, Judgment of 11 February 2010

 

ECtHR Kennedy v United Kingdom, Appl.No.26839/05, Judgment of 18 May 2010

 

ECtHR Liu v Russia (No2), Appl. No. 29157/09, Judgment of 26 July 2011

 

ECtHR Nasr and Ghali v Italy, Appl. No.no.44883/09

 

European Court of Human Rights, Press Release 211, 23 June 2015, Chamber hearing in the case of Ghali v Italy (Appl. No. 44883/09)

 

 

UK case-law

 

R v Sussex Justices Ex p McCarty [1924] 1 KB

 

Kanda v Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322 PC, 337

 

R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, ex parte Wiley [1995] AC 274

 

Carnduff Rock [2001] EWCA Civ 680; [2001]1 W.L.R.1786

 

Secretary of State for the Home Department  v. Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153

 

R v H [2004] UKHL 3, [2004] 2 AC 134

 

R v H and C [2004] UKHL 3

 

Abu Qatada v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SC/15/2002, 8 March 2004)

 

Roberts v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 45

 

MB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 46; [2008] 1 A.C. 440

 

MH and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 2525 (Admin)

 

R (on the application of Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defense [2009] EQHC 1687 (Admin)

 

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No3) [2009] UKHL 28; [2010] 2  A.C. 269 

 

R(Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65

 

Home Office v Tariq [2011] UKSC 35, [2012] 1 A.C. 452

 

Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 A.C. 531

 

Bank Mellat

 

Bank Mellat v HM treasury [2010] EWHC 350 (QB)

 

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2010] EWCA Civ 483

 

Bank Mellat v HM treasury [2013] UKSC 39

 

Bank Mellat v HM treasury [2013] UKSC 38

 

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2014] EWHC 3631 (Admin)

 

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2015] EWCA Civ 1052

 

 

Italian case-law

 

Constitutional Court , Judgment 82/1976, 14 April 1976

 

Constitutional Court, Judgment 86/1977, 24 May 1977

 

Council of State, sez.VI, Judgment 579, 7.May 1988

 

Council of State, sez. IV, Judgment 241, 4 March 1992

 

Italian Council of State, sez. IV, Judgment 1036, 26 November 1993

 

Italian Council of State, sez.VI, Judgment  966, 7 December 1993

 

Italian Council of State, sez.VI, Judgment 1243, 19 July 1994

 

Italian Council of State, sez. IV, Judgment 1024,10 June 1996

 

TAR Piemonte, sez. II, Judgment 168, 26 January 2002

 

Cass., sez I., Judgment 6370, 1 April 2004

 

TAR Lazio, sez. I ter, Judgment 15336, 10 December 2004

 

Council of State, sez. IV, Judgment 88, 12 January 2006              

 

Cass. sez.I, judgment 5518, 14 March 2006                  

 

TAR Lombardia Brescia, sez.I, Judgment 1140, 6 November 2007

 

Cass., Ordinance 462, 13 January 2010

 

Council of State, sez.I, parere n.2226, 1 July 2014

 

Abu Omar:

 

Reg. C. 2/2007; Reg. C. 3/2007; Reg. C. 6/2007; Reg. C. 14/2008; Reg. C. 20/2008; Constitutional Court, Judgment n.106/2009 ,11 March 2009

 

Trib. Milano, IV sez. Pen., Judgment 535/2009, 4 November 2009

 

Corte App., sez. III pen., Judgment 3688/2010, 15 December 2010

 

Cass., sez. V pen., Judgment 46340/2012, 19 September 2012

 

Corte App., sez. IV pen., Judgment 985/2013, 12 February 2013

 

Constitutional Court, Judgment 24/2014, 13 February 2014

 

Cass., sez. I pen., Judgment 20447/2014, 16 May 2014

 

 

Canadian case-law

 

Charkaoui v. Canada, 2007 SCC 9 [2007] 1 SCR 350

 

 

United States case ? law

 

Joint Anti-Facist Refugee Committee v McGrath 341 US 123 (1951)

 

Roviaro v United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957)

 

United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 245?46 (4th Cir. 2008)

 

United States v Moussaoui, No 01 - cr - 00455, 2002 WL 1987964, (ED Va 29 August 2002)

 

United States v Bin Laden, No 98 ?cr-01023, 2001 WL 66393 (SDNY 25 January 2001) (Bin Laden II)

 

United States v Bin Laden, 58 F Supp 2d 113, 116 ? 17 (SDNT 1999)

 

United States v Wilson, 750 F2d, 9

 

 

International acts

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

 

European Convention on Human Rights (1950)

 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

 

Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984)

 

Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities, ASSETS FREEZE: EXPLANAZTION OF TERMS (Updated in Oct 2011 and approved by the Committee on 30 December 2011), paragraph 4, 14 June 2012

 

UN Security Council Resolution 1267 (1999), S/RES/1267

 

UN Security Council Resolution 1333 (2000), S/RES/1333 (2000) as maintained and developed by subsequent resolutions such as 1363 (2001), 1373 (2001), 1390 (2002), 1452 (2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1566 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1624 (2005), 1699 (2006), 1730 (2006), 1735 (2006), 1822 (2008), 1904 (2009), 1988 (2011), 1989 (2011), 2082 (2012), 2083 (2012), 2133 (2014)

 

UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), S/RES/1373

 

?Compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, including on their oversight?, UN document A/HRC/14/46 (2010)

 

?The Rabat Memorandum on Good Practices for Effective Counterterrorism Practice in the Criminal Justice Sector?, Global Counterterrorism Forum, Criminal Justice Sector/Rule of Law Working Group (2012)

 

?Recommendations for Using and Protecting Intelligence Information In Rule of Law-Based, Criminal Justice Sector-Led Investigations and Prosecutions?, Global Counterterrorism Forum, Criminal Justice Sector/Rule of Law Working Group (2014)

 

 

European Union acts

 

Regulation No.3 implementing Article 24 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, Official Journal of the European Union, L 17, 1958, p. 406-416

 

Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991 as last modified on 19 June 2013

 

Proposal for a Council regulation on the security measures applicable to classified information produces or transmitted in connection with European Economic Community or Euratom activities, COM (92) 56 final, submitted by the Commission on 26 February 1992

 

Declaration No 17 on the right of access to information, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union in G.U.CE., C 191 of 29 July 1992

 

Resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation (EEC) on the security measures applicable to classified information produced or transmitted in connection with EEC or Euratom activities, Official Journal of the European Union, C 176, 1993

 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000)

 

Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council?s security regulations, Official Journal of the European Union, L 101, 2001.1

 

Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, Official Journal of the European Union L 145/43 (31 May 2001)

 

Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedures, Official Journal of the European Union, L 317

 

Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism

 

Council Regulation (CE) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism

 

Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan

 

Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information

 

Directive 2004/38/CE 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 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC

 

Council Decision 2005/930/EC of 21 December 2005 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/848/EC

 

Treaty of European Union (2007)

 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2007)

 

Council Decision 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/445/EC

 

Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC

 

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban

 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban

 

The Stockholm Program ? ?An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens? , Official Journal of the European Union, C 115, 11 May 2010

 

 

 

Declaration by the Council and the Commission on the protection and handling of classified information, Brussels, 23 March 2011, available at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/mar/eu-council-classified-information-8054-add1-11.pdf

 

Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information, Official Journal of the European Union L 141, 2011

 

Agreement between the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, regarding the protection of classified information exchanged in the interests of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union C 202, 2011

 

Council of the European Union, ?Draft rules of procedure of the General Court? No. 7795/14, 17 March 2014

 

Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 1 July 2015

 

 

English legislation

 

Magna Carta (1215)

 

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act (1997)

 

Human Rights Act  (1998)

 

Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001)

 

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules (2003)

 

Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005)

 

Counter-Terrorism Act (2008)

 

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act (2011)

 

Justice and Security Act 2013 (UK)

 

Bar Code available at https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-old-code-of-conduct/

 

 

Italian legislation 

 

Italian Penal Code (1930)

 

Constitution of the Italian Republic (1948)

 

Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (1989)

 

Law 241/1990: ?New rules concerning the Administrative Procedure and the Right of Access to Administrative Documents? as amended by Law 15/2005: ?Changes and integrations to Law 7 August 1990 n. 241, concerning general rules on the administrative action?  and by Legislative Decree 36/2006 ?Transposition of Directive 2003/98/CE on the re-use of public sector information?

 

Legislative decree 286/1998: ?Unified Text on measures concerning immigration and norms on the status of foreign citizens? as amended by Law 189/2002: ?Amendments to the legislation on immigration and asylum? ( ?Bossi-Fini Law?), by Law Decree 92/2008: ?Urgent provisions on public security? (?security decree?), by Law 94/2009, ?Provisions on public security? (?security package?) and by Law Decree 89/2011: ??Urgent provisions completing the transposition of Directive 2004/38/E on free movements of EU citizens and transposing Directive 2008/115/EC for returning illegally staying third-country nationals?

 

Legislative decree 144/2005: ?Urgent provisions to combat international terrorism?, converted in Law 155/2005

 

Law 124/2007, ?Intelligence system for the security of the Republic and new provisions governing secrecy? (replacing Law 801/1977) as amended by Law 133/2012, ?Changes to Law 124/2007 concerning the Intelligence System for the security of the Republic and the new provisions governing secrecy?

 

Legislative decree 30/2007: ?Transposition of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union of their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States? as amended and consolidated by Legislative decree 32/2008: ?Amendments and integrations to the Legislative decree n.30/2007, transposing Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States? and by decree law 89/2011: ?Urgent provisions completing the transposition of Directive 2004/38/E on free movements of EU citizens and transposing Directive 2008/115/EC for returning illegally staying third-country nationals?

 

Decree of the President of the Council, 8 April 2008

 

Code of Administrative procedure (legislative decree n.104/2010)

 

Legislative decree 150/2011

 

 

 

 

Canadian legislation:

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982)

 

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-2

Immigration and Refugee protection Act, S.C. 2001

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, SC 2008, c.3

 

 

United States legislation:

 

United States Constitution (1787)

 

Classified Information procedures Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025, 2025-31 (1980) (codified at 18 U.S.C. app. 3)

 

 

Websites

 

http://europeansanctions.com/

 

http://europeanlawblog.eu/

 

http://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/sisr.nsf/index.html

 

SecurityClearedJobs.com: https://www.securityclearedjobs.com/staticpages/10287/get-security-cleared/

 

 

 

(download .pdf file of Dissertation of Isabella Oldani, Università di Trento, 2016)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recent publications

Interpol: a weapon against Human Rights defenders?

Established 1956 in Vienna, the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE ORGANIZATION - INTERPOL enables police in around 190 member countries to work together "to fight international crime": more in detail, its aim is to facilitate international police cooperation even where diplomatic relations do not exist between particular countries [1].

Extradition from Italy

In general, extradition is the process whereby one nation or state (the requested state) surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to another nation or state (the requesting state); hereinafter, for the purposes of this introduction to the extradition rules from Italy, only the the extradition* from Italy to a foreign country* will be considered.

Client - Attorney confidentiality in Italy: core value of democracy or just window dressing ?

Confidentiality is recognised as essential for the proper administration of justice, access to justice and the right to a fair trial, as required under the European Convention of Human Rights, inter alia, in the CCBE Charter of Core Principles of the European legal profession of 2006 (principle 6), in the Code of conduct for european lawyers of 1988 (sub 2.3), in the Recommendation Rec(2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer of 2000 (principle I.6), European Parliament resolution on the legal professions and the general interest in the functioning of legal systems of 2006 (whereas E and H), and in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers of 1990 (principle 8 and 22).

Criminal records in Italy

There are essentially 6 main kinds of records in Italy:

Treatment of classified information before the ECJ

In the post 9/11 context of global terrorism and global counter-terrorism, the question of secrecy, usually grounded in national security-related concerns, has become one of the most interesting legal issues.In the wake of an increasingly transnational terrorism phenomenon, the balancing of security, secrecy and fundamental procedural rights represents an increasing challenge for both the Executive and the judicial authorities.