Abstract

The comment analyses the "ZZ" judgment under two perspectives. On the one hand, it considers the various Treaty provisions on public security concerns, which can be read as derogations to EU law or limits to its field of application. This distinction is highly debated, but in any case, according to the ECJ case-law, States cannot resort to public security arguments to justify deviations from the general principles of EU law. On the other hand, the analysis discusses the compatibility of secret evidence and judicial orders regimes as means to fight international terrorism with the need to protect the right to an effective judicial remedy, under Article 47 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the EU.