"Sufficiently informed to meet the case"? The right to information in a Europe fighting terror

Sammanfattning: Since the terror attacks in USA in 2001, legal measures with the aim of preventing new attacks have multiplied, many with direct and harsh effects on individuals. Proceedings imposing such measures have, furthermore, been characterized by secrecy, sometimes to the extent that none of the grounds have been communicated to the persons concerned. This has led to a legal development in Europe concerning the procedural right to information, which forms part of the right to a fair hearing. This legal development is assessed in this essay. Through the analysis of anti-terrorism measures from three different legal orders: the UK, Sweden, and the European Union, the state of the law on procedural information rights is illustrated. It is concluded that although the last decade’s legal development, driven by the ECtHR, has strengthened information rights, there are still important gaps. One such gap regards security-related deportation proceedings. A strengthening of the individual’s information rights in relation to these is suggested, in particular when also the question whether there is a risk of torture as a result of the deportation has to be determined in the proceeding. A warning is also raised in relation to measures imposed through EU regulations, freezing the assets of terrorist suspects. Although the EU courts’ case law has led to significant ameliorations in the EU procedural rights protection there is a risk, due to the multi-level structure of the freezing regimes, that a sanctioned individual falls between the systems and is consequently not afforded a sufficient procedural protection. Awareness in the Member States of the required standard of information rights and the intrusive nature of the freezing measure is therefore imperative.