I am sure that we are not going to bring those to justice that create law that is found unconstitutional.
That's right; but note that the minister they select depends on what's being discussed. There isn't really a "Council of Ministers" you could list the names of; it changes for each meeting.
That is, the C of M is really a council of member governments. And what government wouldn't like to have the EU mandate maximum surveillance, so when their citizens complain, they can just blame the EU?
The general principle is that EU law takes precedence over national laws, including national constitutions. If a member state finds a law unconstitutional, they have a few options. They could try to convince everyone else to change the law. They could change their constitution. They could leave the EU. Or they could just ignore the law and face the political and financial consequences.
In some sense, the EU is no different from any other legally binding international treaty. It's a package deal, so you can't avoid the aspects you don't like. But because treaties are between sovereign states, it's always possible to leave them.
Well, someone has to take that job. But they shouldn't be listend to and I think these ambitions are clearly in violation of multiple constitutions. Although those that have exemptions for security are more or less worthless anyway.
But it's just the executive branch of the EU itself- "A majority of the EU Council of Ministers". More or less, each government selects a minister to represent them in this council.
The article should really be reporting on how this bill is progressing. I am no legal expert, but I believe the EU parliament, which is actually elected, could reject it. I am not sure what happens if it is found unconstitutional in some of the countries concerned.