When it comes to digital rights, the European Union likes to position itself as the leader globally. Ever since the European Union’s data protection regulation, numerous court verdicts that stopped mass surveillance and the charter that established privacy as a fundamental right, the reputation of the European Union as a leader on digital rights has developed over time. Yet at the same time, EU surveillance laws are being expanded quietly – not by way of some big law that grabs headlines but by a growing number of special regulations that give governments access to digital data faster, broader and more often.

Surveillance is increasingly becoming a part of how the EU regulates the digital sphere, shaping laws on national security, online safety, cross-border policing, and digital infrastructure. What we get is a system that recognizes the rights of people, but puts those rights to test in practice. The EU’s highest court has decided more than once that blanket surveillance has no place in the EU.

It was a little more than a decade ago that the European Union’s Data Retention Directive was ruled by the European Court of Justice to be an unlawful interference in private life as it required communication service providers to store all customer data for some period in order to be able to supply this data to state authorities on request. Later, it was also decided by the European Court of Justice that even just communication data like who you contact, when, and from where, can reveal intimate details about people, so that this metadata must also be protected. The court is clear that surveillance has to be targeted, be proportional to what you want to do and you have to have an independent body overseeing it.

What followed was not a step back but a new strategy – which is a part of contemporary European digital lanscape. Older laws required telecoms and platforms to store data systematically; newer directives focus on access rather than collection. Data may no longer be retained by default but it is increasingly reachable through accelerated processes, technical obligations on providers and cross-border requests that bypass older safeguards.

The legal form has changed, while the practical availability of data often has a different shape. To that end, the growing role of private companies is one of the most visible shifts: platforms are becoming gatekeepers of surveillance. EU rules will allow police and prosecutors in one country to request user data directly from service providers based in another; the aim is speed, as investigations should not stall because data sits behind a border. Even though judicial authorisation should remain central, in practice platforms will be the first line of decision-making, required to assess the legality of requests, often within hours and across different legal systems. A second trend reshaping EU surveillance law is prevention: new legislative proposals aim to detect serious harm – such as child abuse material – before it spreads; few dispute the legitimacy of these goals but the challenge lies in the tools required to achieve them.

Detection systems rely on programs that scan traffic, match patterns and watch networks without pause. When governments use them sparingly, the systems still sweep vast stretches of data. Experts and lawyers warn that once the engines start, no simple off switch exists, above all when privacy is required to remain secure.

Europe’s judiciary has consistently opposed generalized monitoring. In matters concerning national security, judges have emphasized that even significant threats do not warrant permanent or indiscriminate surveillance. The conflict is becoming increasingly evident: preventive goals drive the need for continuous oversight, while constitutional principles demand exceptions and restraint.

But courts have made clear that when providers are required to cooperate systematically with public authorities, fundamental rights still apply-regardless of whether the rules are framed as security or infrastructure policy. (e.g., in cases like Privacy International).

As digital governance shifts toward centralised control of networks, the boundary between managing infrastructure and monitoring users becomes harder to define. Formally, the safeguards remain in place. Courts review surveillance measures. Data protection authorities exist. Independent regulators still play a role.

Yet institutional design matters. Recent reforms emphasise coordination, speed, and centralisation. Oversight is increasingly shared between EU bodies, national authorities, and private companies. Responsibility is spread thin.

European judges have consistently emphasized that access to sensitive data must be granted by entities that are both independent and authorized to deny such access. The question remains whether this standard can be maintained as surveillance becomes increasingly integrated into daily digital systems. This does not constitute a clear rejection of privacy or civil liberties.

In theory, EU surveillance legislation continues to adhere to principles of necessity, proportionality, and judicial oversight. The change is more nuanced. Surveillance is no longer perceived as an extraordinary power but rather as a standard aspect of digital governance, embedded within platforms, networks, and international collaboration. For a Union that identifies itself with transparency, individual rights, and an open digital society, the challenge extends beyond mere legal compliance. It involves ensuring that surveillance does not become the default state of online participation. Whether the existing framework achieves that equilibrium, or subtly shifts it, will significantly influence Europe’s digital future more than any individual piece of legislation.

europeanpirates.eu/the-eus-evo…