European Union Law
Part A
In the autumn of 2010 there were a series of violent riots after international sporting events held at stadiums in the EU member states of Denway, Norberg, Estvia and Latonia. The security at all of these events was provided by the multinational private military/security company Triggerhappy SA. There were subsequent reports that Triggerhappy security officers were detaining individuals who were suspected of contributing to the disturbances in their vans and questioning and physically abusing them, despite the fact that none of them had legally mandated powers to act in this way.

In light of public concerns about the level of standards upon which these Private military/security companies operate with the various EU Member States the European Commission started an investigation. The European Commission’s impact assessment showed that different standards employed by the Member States in the regulation of Private Military and Security Companies (ranging from very low to extremely stringent standards) introduced barriers to intra-union trade and thus distorted competition in the market. In April 2011 the Commission proposed new legislation which would require:

i) New harmonising measures be introduced that would ensure that all private
military/ security companies (PMSCs) delivering security services would have to ensure that they met specific minimum standards in the recruitment and training of their staff;
ii) All member States (MS) would have to take positive steps to allow PMSCs to tender for contracts to deliver security in specific situations where security is traditionally discharged by the police. These are situations involving only ‘soft’ security such as crowd management at major international sporting events.

The measures are opposed by 55% of the parliaments of the MS who issue opinions stating that:

i) The EU would be acting outside its powers if it required MS to open up areas of public sector security policy to private sector competition;
ii) The harmonising measures proposed require decisions to be reached about appropriate standards in the delivery of private security services which could be better reached at a national level.

The Commission decides that it will nevertheless proceed with the Directive proposal and submits a reasoned opinion to the European Parliament and the Council. The Council and the European Parliament vote (by QMV) in favour of the proposed legislation.

Critically comment on the manner in which the legislation has been adopted.

Part B
On 1 December 2012 a new Directive on Security at International Sporting Events is published. The legal basis for the measure is Art 114 TFEU. It creates a new framework for the regulation of PMCs within the EU. The preamble to the Directive describes the riots of autumn 2010 and mentions Triggerhappy SA by name. Article 1 of the Directive requires that all PMSCs notify the Commission of their internal standards for recruitment and training of staff to ensure that they comply with the new EU level standards. Articles 2-10 of the Directive describe this new technical framework and the standards that PMCs must meet. Article 11 of the Directive states that all MS must amend their domestic legislation so that PMSCs are allowed to tender for contracts to deliver security services at all major international sporting events.

Advise:

1) Triggerhappy SA who currently recruit their staff by handing out leaflets to people who look threatening leaving sporting events and offer only limited training to their employees. They are concerned that the standards being set by the Commission will threaten their business and wish to challenge the lawfulness of Articles 1-10 of the Directive.

AND

2) Victims of Violence in Sport (VoViS) which represents the people hurt in the riots in autumn 2010. They are concerned that the requirement to open up the market in providing security at sporting events to private companies will drive down standards in delivering security. They have conducted a significant amount of research into the standards of security service provided by PMSCs and by publicly funded police and are convinced that only the police can provide appropriately safe security at major sporting events. They also think that it is inconsistent with fundamental rights to allow private companies to exercise powers of control and possible detention over the public instead of the police when disorder arises. They wish to challenge the lawfulness of Article 11 of the Directive.