Category: 1.1 News from the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Daily news from the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

Mostly Found via:
Statewatch – http://statewatch.org
Eu Logos Athena – http://eu-logos.org/
Euobserver – http://euobserver.com/
Presseurop – http://presseurop.eu
Euractiv – http://euractiv.com/
European Media Monitor – http://emm.newsbrief.eu/overview.html
Réseau Universitaire Européen Droit de l’Espace de Liberté, Sécurité et Justice – http://gdr-elsj.eu/

The surveillance society (4): a further study for the European Parliament

Following the so called “Snowden revelations” at the end of the last legislature the European Parliament adopted a wide ranging resolution addressing the main problems arising from an emerging surveillance society.  The resolution adopted inter alia “A European Digital Habeas Corpus” deemed to  protect  fundamental rights in a digital age.

Work on this sensitive issue is continuing also in this legislature as the European Parliament has to play a pivotal role in the establishment of the European Digital Agenda, the reform of data protection and to approve an “umbrella” agreement with the United States which is deemed to cover also the access to personal data for security purposes.

To support this Parliamentary strategy several studies have been done the last of them being a study done by the EP “Scientific and Technology Options Assessment “(STOA) which was presented in the responsible Parliamentary Committee (LIBE) Meeting on 23 April 2015.

The aim of the study is to propose measures to reduce the risks identified with the current generation of networks and services and to identify long-term technology oriented policy options for a better, more secure and more privacy friendly internet, whilst at the same time allowing governmental law enforcement and security agencies to perform their duties, and obtain quickly and legally all the information needed to fight crime and to protect national security interests.

The first part of the study concludes with a list of security solutions to help citizens protect themselves from illicit mass surveillance activities. In its Conclusions it recognise that “Mass surveillance is a reality today and has been applied for years by national intelligence agencies of a number of countries, namely those allied in the Five Eyes coalition, but also including EU members and other countries. The agencies involved in mass surveillance practices justify these methods with the doctrine of pre-emptive prevention of crime and terrorism and adopt the principle of omniscience as its core purpose. This objective of intercepting all communication taking place over Internet or telephone networks is in many cases pursued by applying questionable, if not outright illegal intrusions in IT and Telecommunication systems.This strategy accumulates an amount of information that can only be processed and analysed by systems of artificial intelligence, able to discern patterns which indicate illegal, criminal, or terrorist activities. While warranted and lawful interception of data on targeted suspects is a required and undisputed tool for law enforcement to access evidence, the generalised approach of information gathering through mass surveillance is violating the right to privacy and freedom of speech. The delegation of decisions on suspicious data patterns or behaviour of citizens to intelligent computer systems is furthermore preventing accountability and creating the menace of an Orwellian surveillance society. Many citizens are not aware of the threats they may be subject to when using the Internet or telecommunication devices. As of today, the only way for citizens to counteract surveillance and prevent breach of privacy consists in guaranteeing uncorrupted end-to-end encryption of content and transport channel in all their communications. Due to the amount/complexity/heterogeneity of tools this is however a task too complex to achieve for most of technically unexperienced user. This situation calls for both, awareness creation and the provision of integrated, user friendly and easy to use solutions that guarantee privacy and security of their communications. But policy makers must understand that the problem of mass surveillance can not be solved on a technical terrain, but needs to be addressed on a political level. An adequate balance between civil liberties and legitimate national security interests has to be found, based on a public discussion that empowers citizens to decide upon their civil rights affected and the societal values at stake”.

The second part of the study concludes with the proposal of several policy options with different levels of public intervention and technological disruption.

A STOA options brief below provides  an overview of all the policy options and  Two short Video-Clips  have been published on YouTube to raise the awareness of the public.

Further information

 

The surveillance society (3) by David COLE

Original published on TIME 

NSA Ruling Is a Victory for Privacy

By David COLE (*)

Renew the NSA’s authority — but only if it is significantly reined in

In a major victory for privacy and democracy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled today that the National Security Agency has been illegally collecting information about Americans’ phone calls—all Americans’ phone calls—for at least nine years. In the name of fighting terror, the agency has been collecting records on all of us—who we call, when we call, and how long we talk, although not the contents of the calls—without regard to whether we are connected to terrorism. The court unanimously ruled that the NSA’s massive “phone metadata” program, first revealed by Edward Snowden in June 2013, is not authorized by the statute the NSA has long relied on to conduct the program. Congress is currently considering whether to renew, reform, or let the provision expire. Today’s ruling should inform Congress’s debate, and supports renewing the NSA’s authority only if it is significantly reined in.

The court’s decision turned on the meaning of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, passed shortly after 9/11. It authorizes the government to obtain records from businesses if they are “relevant” to an “authorized investigation … of international terrorism.” This language would plainly enable the NSA to obtain the phone calling records, for example, of a suspected terrorist, or of persons closely connected to him. But in a secret interpretation allowed by a secret intelligence court in 2006, the NSA asserted that this provision empowered it to obtain the phone records of every American, regardless of whether they were in any way connected to terrorism. It’s that interpretation that the U.S. Court of Appeals wisely rejected today.

The NSA argued that every American’s records were “relevant” and therefore subject to collection because at some point in the future they might come in handy to a terrorism investigation. But as the court of appeals reasoned, that theory is limitless. It would authorize the NSA to collect all business records about everyone—including financial records, medical records, and email and internet search records—without any showing of an actual tie to terrorism.

The court of appeals is not the first to find the NSA’s interpretation a stretch. When Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican who drafted the Patriot Act provision in question, learned of the NSA’s interpretation, he said that he never intended it to authorize such “dragnet collection” of information on innocent Americans. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, a government oversight body created by Congress and appointed by the president, concluded in January 2014 that Section 215 did not authorize the NSA’s program.

But the unanimous decision of the federal court of appeals has the force of law. More important, its opinion makes eminent sense, underscoring that when Congress gives the executive authority to obtain information only where it is relevant to a specific investigation, the NSA should not secretly expand that to collect records on us all.

The court’s timely decision comes as Congress is considering what to do about Section 215. A bipartisan group of members, including Senators Pat Leahy and Mike Lee, and Representatives Sensenbrenner and John Conyers, has introduced the USA Freedom Act, which would end the NSA’s bulk collection authority, and allow it to seek phone records only when reasonably connected to specific identifiers or “selectors” tied to terrorism. Senator Mitch McConnell, by contrast, has proposed a bill that would reauthorize Section 215 with no reforms whatsoever.

Congress should be guided by the federal appeals court’s careful reasoning. As the court found, the authority asserted and exercised by the NSA was entirely unprecedented. It goes far beyond any preexisting authority to obtain records in any other investigative context. Digital technology makes this possible; the government can now track us in ways that until very recently were simply impossible. But just because it can do so doesn’t make it right to do so. If we are to preserve our privacy in the digital age, we must confront that reality and insist that the government’s new spying technologies be appropriately constrained.

Congress should pass the USA Freedom Act. But doing so will by no means be sufficient. Snowden revealed a wide range of NSA spy programs that intrude on the privacy rights of innocent Americans and non-Americans alike. The USA Freedom Act deals only with one such program. But the court of appeals, and the USA Freedom Act, point the way forward in a more general way. If we are to rein in the NSA, we must insist first that there be public debate before the government institutes sweeping new surveillance programs, and we must demand, second, that surveillance be targeted at individuals as to whom there is suspicion of wrongdoing, and not applied indiscriminately to us all.

 (*) George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law Center.

CHEERLEADING OR JUDGING? THE CJEU UPHOLDS THE EU’S UNITARY PATENT SYSTEM

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED IN EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

Two new CJEU judgments (here and here) have today upheld the legality of the EU rules on the unitary patent. To what extent are the Court’s reasons convincing and coherent?

Background

The background to today’s rulings was summarised in my previous blog post, on the Advocate-General’s opinion. Suffice it to say that: the EU has tried for decades to agree on patent rules, and the Treaty of Lisbon created a specific legal base for the adoption of EU intellectual property rules (Article 118 TFEU). The main rules are to be adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure (qualified majority voting in Council, joint power for the European Parliament), but the languages rules, which apply in this case to translations of the patent (or patent claims), must still be agreed by unanimity.

Since Member States could not reach the required unanimity on the patent translation rules, most Member States agreed to apply the process of ‘enhanced cooperation’, ie adopting EU legislation that applied to some Member States, but not others. This entailed a two-step procedure: authorisation of enhanced cooperation by the Council (by a qualified majority vote of all Member States), and then the adoption of the legislation to implement enhanced cooperation, with only the participating Member States voting. Spain and Italy challenged the initial authorisation (adopted in 2011) regarding patents, but the CJEU ruled against them in 2013. The two Regulations implementing enhanced cooperation in this area were adopted, in the meantime, at the end of 2012, concerning the substantive rules governing a ‘unitary patent’ and thelanguage rules.  Spain (this time without Italy) challenged these measures in turn; those two challenges are the subject of today’s judgment.

The EU legislation on this issue is closely linked to two international treaties. First of all, the European Patent Convention, agreed in 1973, which binds all EU Member States and a number of non-Member States, and which sets up a legal framework for registering a patent in a number of European countries, by means of an application to the European Patent Office which it established. This results in a ‘European patent’, but the legal title concerned is not genuinely uniform, but depends on the national law of each of the countries where the patent is registered. The point of the EU legislation is to create a form of European patent that will have uniform existence in all of the participating Member States, also reducing the costs of translation that would otherwise apply.

The second treaty concerned is a treaty among Member States creating a Unified Patent Court, in order to reduce the costs of litigation concerning European patents and the planned unitary patent. (Although the CJEU had objected to aspects of these plans in its Opinion 1/09, Member States believe that they have addressed the Court’s concerns). That treaty will come into force once thirteen Member States, including France, Germany and the UK, have ratified it. So far six Member States have, including France. The application of the EU’s unitary patent law is dependent upon this treaty coming into force, and the unitary patents will only be valid in Member States which have ratified the treaty (all Member States except Spain, Poland and Croatia have signed it; all Member States except Spain, Italy and Croatia participate in the Regulations).

The judgments

Spain’s legal arguments against the two EU Regulations differed somewhat. As regards the main Regulation, Spain argued that it was invalid because it created a unitary patent dependent upon the acts of the European Patent Office, whose acts are not subject to judicial review. Secondly, the Regulation did not create ‘uniform protection’ within the meaning of Article 118 TFEU. Thirdly, there is a ‘misuse of power’, ie enhanced cooperation was used for a purpose other than the Treaties allow for. Next, the Regulation breached the rules concerning the conferral of implementing power upon the Commission, because it gives power to the Member States to decide on issues such as renewal fees.

As regards the languages Regulation, Spain argued that the special status of the French, English and German languages set out in that Regulation was discriminatory. Also, it argues that there is no legal power for the EU to regulate language issues in the event of a dispute, as the Regulation does, and that the Regulation violates the principle of legal certainty.

In both cases, Spain argued that the rules on adopting implementing measures were invalid, since powers to implement EU law were granted to a non-EU body, the European Patent Office. Also, it argued that making the application of the Regulations dependent upon the ratification of the treaty creating the unified patent court breached the principle of the autonomy of EU law.

The CJEU has rejected all of these arguments. In its view, the main Regulation doesn’t violate the rule of law, since it simply takes the form of a ‘special agreement’ as provided for in the EPC. Secondly, the Court said that Article 118 TFEU was the correct legal base for the legislation, since it established a system of uniform protection for unitary patents. It did not matter that it referred to national law as regards some issues, since Article 118 does not require the EU to fully harmonise the particular intellectual property right at issue, and at least this provided for more harmonisation than the EPC, which is in effect a bundle of national patents. Thirdly, there was no ‘misuse of power’, since the Regulation did not secretly aim at a purpose other than its purported end. Next, it was acceptable for the Regulation to confer upon Member States the power (acting via their participation in the EPO) to implement its rules, since the EU Treaties only require implementing powers to be conferred upon the conditions where ‘uniform’ implementing measures were required. Nor did the Regulation violate the ‘Meroni principle’ of an impermissible delegation of discretionary powers. Finally, the Spanish government’s challenges relating to the unified patent court treaty were inadmissible, and its challenge to the rules on the timing of the application of the Regulation were rejected on the merits. The Court ruled that the EU is free to defer application of EU legislation until preparatory steps have been taken, and that limiting the application of the Regulation to those Member States which have ratified the unified patent court treaty was acceptable, since it only affected a few provisions of the Regulation.

As for the languages Regulation, the CJEU ruled that while it was discriminatory in principle to confine translations to three languages only, there was no rule of EU law that all EU languages have to be equally valid as regards all issues linked to EU law. The discrimination as regards languages could be justified by the need for reducing costs and therefore encouraging innovation. It was appropriate to use the three languages already used by the EPO, in light of the link between the EPO and the EU system, and the EU law was not disproportionate, in light of the rules in the Regulation designed to address the concerns of patent holders using other languages. The Court also ruled that the entire Regulation fell within the scope of the ‘legal base’ relating to languages issues, and that there was no breach of the principle of legal certainty.

Comments

The CJEU did not really rule on any of the many interesting questions about thesubstantive grounds governing the implementation of enhanced cooperation, simply because Spain did not raise them. However, the argument relating to discrimination touches indirectly upon those issues.

Parts of the Court’s ruling are convincing, particularly as regards the possibility of delaying the entry into force of EU laws to wait for other developments, the ‘legal certainty’ issues relating to the languages Regulation and the legal base issue regarding the same Regulation. However, with respect, some of its reasoning was only partially convincing. The Court’s case for using a limited number of languages is sensible only if one accepts its underlying premise that the unitary patent system will have the overall impact of enhancing innovation. Many critics of the patent system argue that it does the reverse, by giving an overly lengthy monopoly to the patent-holders. To be fair, though, it would be too much to expect the Court to enter into this argument, particularly since Spain did not raise it.

Similarly, the Court’s argument that the Meroni principle was not infringed is sensible enough – if one accepts its separate conclusion that the main Regulation validly conferred implementing powers upon Member States. But that conclusion brings us to the chain of contradictions in the Court’s reasoning. For the powers that Member States will exercise when implementing the unitary patent Regulations will not result in divergent approaches in each country’s individual national laws, as is normally the case when Member States are left with the powers to implement EU law in practice. Rather, they must exercise their powers collectively, to adopt uniform rules regarding the unitary patent, within the context of the EPO. Indeed, the Court’s other conclusionsinsist upon the uniform nature of that patent. This points us inexorably toward the conclusion that uniform rules to implement the Regulations were necessary – which means (according to the Treaties) that such powers ought to have been conferred upon the Commission.

For the same reasons, the Court’s dismissal of the argument against limiting the application of the main Regulation to those Member States which have ratified the unified patent court treaty is unconvincing. The Court is indeed right to say that this limitation affects only a few provisions of the Regulation – but these are the provisions relating to the uniform nature of the patent, which the Court relied on so heavily when it defended the legal base of this Regulation.

This stress on the uniform nature of the patent also contradicts the first part of the Court’s reasoning on the main Regulation, which deferred to the EPC system and argued rather that EU law did not alter that system at all. The Court did not adequately answer the argument that the EU lacked power to do this, and entirely side-stepped the important argument that the EPO should be subject to judicial review. This contrasts with the Court’s famous insistence in Kadi upon the need for adequate review of international bodies whose acts impact upon the EU legal order.

In the Court’s view, the unitary patent system is valid because it largely refers back to the EPO system, and also because it does not. With respect, the Court is trying to have its cake and eat it too. A better argument would have been to embrace the hybrid nature of the system rather than run away from it. After all, the drafters of the Treaty of Lisbon were well aware of the existence of the EPO. In light of the discussions on a possible EU patent which were underway when that Treaty’s predecessor (the Constitutional Treaty) was drawn up, a hybrid solution based on a combination of the EPO and EU law was presumably exactly what the Treaty drafters were aiming to facilitate when they added Article 118 TFEU to the Treaties.

Whether the Treaty drafters ought to have intended this is, of course, another question. But the best place for a debate about the fundamental merits of intellectual property protection is the political arena, not the courts. While today’s judgments confirm the legal validity of the EU’s unitary patent system, and enable it to go forward in the near future (after several more ratifications of the patent court treaty), their circular and contradictory reasoning suggests that the Court simply wanted to approve the patent system regardless of the legal arguments against. But this approach to judicial analysis could ultimately hinder, rather than bolster, the broader legitimacy of the unitary patent system.

THE CJEU WASHES ITS HANDS OF MEMBER STATES’ FINGERPRINT RETENTION (JOINED CASES C-446/12 – 449/12 WILLEMS)

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW BLOG

by

When is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU applicable to a Member State measure? In C-446/12 – 449/12 Willems the CJEU held that a Member State which stores and uses fingerprint data, originally collected in compliance with Regulation No 2252/2004, but which the Member State then uses for purposes other than those stipulated in the Regulation, is not acting within the scope of EU law, and therefore is not bound by the Charter. This case appears to indicate a retreat by the Court from the expansive interpretation of the scope of application of the Charter which it had previously laid down in C-617/10 Fransson.

Facts and judgment

Council Regulation No 2252/2004/EC requires Member States to collect and store biometric data, including fingerprints, in the storage medium of passports and other travel documents, and require that such data be used for verifying the authenticity of the document or the identity of the holder. Spain introduced measures requiring the collection and retention of the fingerprint data for use in connection with travel documents. However, those national measures also provide that such data can be kept in a central register, and used for other purposes (such as national security, prevention of crime and identification of disaster victims). The applicants made passport applications, but refused to provide the fingerprint data. They argued, inter alia, that the storage and further use of those data breached their fundamental rights under Article 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The national court referred two questions for preliminary ruling.

The first question concerned the applicability of the Regulation to national identity cards. The Court held that the Regulation did not apply to such cards. The second question is the one I want to focus on: Does Article 4(3) of the Regulation, read together with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 95/46/EC  and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, require Member States to guarantee that the biometric data collected and stored pursuant to that Regulation will not be collected, processed and used for purposes other than the issue of passports or other travel documents?

The ECJ had already held (in C-291/12 Schwarz) that the collection of those data for the purposes stipulated in the regulation (to verify the authenticity of the passport or the identity of the holder) was compatible with the Charter. The question was whether further processing of those data by the Member State would similarly be compatible.

The Court noted that the Regulation did not provide a legal basis for such further processing – if a Member State were to retain those data for other purposes, it would need to do so in exercise of its own competence (para 47). On the other hand, the Regulation did not require a Member State not to use it for other purposes. From these two observations the Court concluded that the Regulation was not applicable. The Court then cited its famous passage in C-617/10 Franssonwhere it had held that the applicability of EU law entails the applicability of the Charter. As the Regulation was not applicable, the Charter was not applicable either.

The Court then turned to Directive 95/46/EC  (the Data Protection Directive). It merely observed that the referring court requested the interpretation of the Regulation “and only that Regulation”. As the Regulation was not applicable, there was no need to examine whether the Data Protection Directive may affect the national measures.

Comment

I will focus on the question of applicability of the Charter (See Steve Peers comment on the “appalling” reasoning of the Court in respect of the Data Protection Directive). This judgment appears to signal a retreat by the Court from the expansive understanding of the scope of application which was laid down inFransson. It is true that in that case the Court had held that when EU law is not applicable, the Charter is not applicable. But when applying that test to the facts, the Court observed that the national (Swedish) measure was connected (in part) to infringements of the VAT Directive, and therefore was designed to implement an obligation imposed on the Member States by EU law “to impose effective penalties for conduct prejudicial to the financial interests of the European Union”. So inFransson the Court held that national measures which were connected in part to a specific obligation imposed by EU law on the Member State fell within the scope of application of EU law, and therefore of the Charter.

In the present case, the national measures are designed (in part) to implement the obligation imposed on the Member States by the Regulation, to collect and retain fingerprint data. Applying the reasoning in Fransson it would seem to follow that such measures would fall within the scope of EU law – after all, the measures relate to the retention of fingerprints, and the reason the fingerprints need to be retained stems from a specific obligation imposed, by EU law, on Member States: the obligation to collect and store biometric data with a view to issuing passports and travel data, set out in Article 4(3) of the Regulation.

Of course, this case can be distinguished from Fransson. In Fransson the Member State’s measure could be seen as not only stemming from the specific obligation imposed by EU law, but also as furthering the EU purpose of preventing conduct prejudicial to its financial interests. In contrast, in the present case the Member State’s measure is in furtherance of a member state’s purposes, and not an EU purpose.

But such a distinction would seem to entail a very strict approach to what obligations are imposed by EU law. Because the obligation which the Regulation imposes is not just to collect and store date, but also (under Article 4(3) of the Regulation) to ensure that the data are only used to for the specified purposes set out in the Regulation. That obligation was subsequently modified by Recital 5 inRegulation 444/2009, which states that Regulation 2252/2004 is “without prejudice to any other use or storage of these data in accordance with national legislation of Member States.” But is such a Recital sufficient to place the measures concerning those data outside the scope of EU law, or does it merely confer a discretion on states to adopt such measures, provided that they are compatible with EU law? Unfortunately, the reasoning in this judgment does not provide much guidance.

Conclusion

The approach of the Court in Fransson did not meet universal approval, and the judgement of the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Counter-Terrorism Database case may be read as a warning shot across the CJEU’s bows to make sure that the Charter is not applied to Member States’ measures in a way that “question[s] the identity of the [national] constitutional order”.  And by emphasising the autonomy of EU fundamental rights in its recent Opinion 2/13 on the accession to the ECHR, the Court certainly raised the stakes involved in demanding Member State compliance with the Charter. So this case may indicate a desire to ensure that the EU fundamental rights standard is reserved for those Member State measures where it matters most that a EU standard is applied – those matters where the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law is at stake.

In effect, this case can be read as tacit acceptance of AG Cruz Villalón in hisOpinion in Fransson, who proposed that the oversight by the Court of the exercise of public authority by the Member States be limited to those cases where there was “a specific interest of the Union in ensuring that that exercise of public authority accords with the interpretation of the fundamental rights by the Union”. However, that Opinion was a well reasoned legal argument. This judgment leaves many questions unanswered, and makes it very difficult to predict when a national measure will fall within the scope of EU law.

Furthermore, this approach sits uneasily with the self-understanding of the EU as a Union based on the rule of law inasmuch as neither Member States nor its institutions can avoid review of the conformity of their acts with fundamental rights (C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi). Through this Regulation, the EU requires the Member States to collect and store sensitive personal data of all EU citizens who wish to travel; but where the Member States go on to use those data in ways that may breach the fundamental rights of those EU citizens, the Court washes its hands of the matter.

 

 

Terrorisme : La France n’est pas seule concernée mais la France doit aussi se sentir en cause ..

OPINION  (ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE)

par Simone GABORIAU 
Présidente de chambre honoraire de la cour d’appel de Paris (Membre du Conseil d’administration de M.ED.E.L).

Apres les attentats des 7, 8, 9 janvier, les plus meurtriers qu’ait connus la France depuis plus de 50 ans (1), après la stupeur, l’émotion et l’union, le temps de la réflexion rationnelle s’impose. Il faut le faire en France et au sein de l’Europe des droits de l’homme mais aussi dans le contexte de l’environnement humanitaire mondial.
Les actes terroristes ne sont pas nouveaux dans l’histoire du monde
Contrairement a bien des idées reçues, le terrorisme n’est pas le fruit du malheur de notre temps mais appartient a une histoire ancienne.
« L’histoire mondial du terrorisme concerne la totalité du monde et ne fait pas de distinction entre continents, aires culturelles et religieuses (2) ».
Du terrorisme interne au terrorisme international, les origines en ont été multiples ; y ont été représentées : toutes les religions, divers courants de pensée, des mouvements irrédentistes, ou de résistance à l’oppression ou de conquête d’indépendance face au colonisateur… Certains groupements ont été héroïses d’autres diabolisés. Certains ont été vaincus par la force ou la répression, d’autres se sont finalement assis a des tables de négociations. Sans oublier de citer le « terrorisme d’Etat » dont l’origine est notamment à « la terreur » de la Révolution française, reprise par la Révolution russe et qui peut s’appliquer à bien des situations de terreur d’Etat qui ont sévi ou sévissent encore dans le monde.

Un terrorisme devenu global

Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, ont révélé que l’on doit, de plus en plus, faire face à un terrorisme global, en ce qu’il emprunte les moyens de la globalisation technologique et financière pour relier des individus, ou groupes, terroristes, indépendamment de leur base territoriale.
Cette nouvelle dimension a facilité la montée en puissance du terrorisme se revendiquant du radicalisme islamique lequel, actuellement, serait responsable de la majorité du nombre de victimes (3).
Mais il faut se garder, d’interpréter cette situation comme une manifestation du « choc guerrier des civilisations » car ce serait tomber dans le piège tendu par ce terrorisme.

La reconnaissance d’une communauté mondiale de valeurs (4) ?

Ce caractère global a plus que jamais motive la volonté de coopération internationale. Apres l’échec de la SDN, l’ONU peine a l’établir de façon compatible avec la sauvegarde des droits fondamentaux comme l’illustre le système des « listes noires » finalement annulé par la Cour de justice des communautés européennes (5).
Cette communauté de valeurs parait avoir été mieux sauvegardée au niveau européen, a tout le moins, par le rôle des juridictions Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme et Cour de justice des communautés européennes.

La montée en puissance de la reconnaissance des victimes

Dans cette communauté de valeurs, la personne de la victime a pris une place grandissante. L’acte terroriste qui trouvait jusque dans les années 1970-80, bien des gens pour l’excuser ou le légitimer est devenu d’autant plus insupportable qu’il visait des civils définis des lors comme des victimes par excellence (6).
Le discours public en France, et sans doute dans bien des pays, est particulièrement sensible a la prise en compte des victimes. C’est, au reste, un des progrès récent de nos sociétés démocratiques.

Brève, et non exhaustive, analyse de la situation Française Continue reading “Terrorisme : La France n’est pas seule concernée mais la France doit aussi se sentir en cause ..”

The revision of the EU Anti-Money Laundering legal framework is fast approaching..

By Dalila DELORENZI (Free Group trainee)

1.Foreword

Broadly speaking Money laundering means the conversion of the proceeds of criminal activity into apparently clean funds, usually via the financial system  by disguising the sources of the money, changing its form, or moving the funds to a place where they are less likely to attract attention. Terrorist financing is the provision or collection of funds, by any means, directly or indirectly, with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used in order to carry out terrorist offences. At EU level since 1991 at EU level legislation has been introduced to limit these activities and to protect the integrity and stability of the financial sector and, more in general, of the Internal Market. The EU rules are to a large extent based on Recommendations  adopted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) which is an intergovernmental body with 36 members, and with the participation of over 180 countries in the world.

The directive currently into force is the Third Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Directive which applies to the financial sector (credit institutions, financial institutions) as well as to professionals such as lawyers, notaries, accountants, real estate agents, casinos and company service providers. Its scope also encompasses all providers of goods, when payments are made in cash in excess of EUR 15.000. All these addressees are considered “obliged entities”. The Directive requires these obliged entities to identify and verify the identity of customers (so-called customer due diligence, hereinafter ‘CDD’) and beneficial owners, and to monitor the financial transactions of the customers. It then includes obligations to report suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing to the relevant Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), as well as other accompanying obligations. The Directive also introduces additional requirements and safeguards (such as the requirement to conduct enhanced customer due diligence) for situations of higher risk.

In force since 2005 the third Money Laundering Directive required a revision against the backdrop of the constantly changing nature of money laundering and terrorist financing threats, facilitated by a constant evolution of technology and of the means at the disposal of criminals. In particular, the recent terrorist attacks in Paris have increased the necessity of decisive actions against terrorist financing and further efforts need to be made in adapting the current framework to a different reality. Therefore in accordance with this purpose, at the international level measures have been taken by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF): a fundamental review of the international standards has been undertaken and a new set of Recommendations have been adopted in February 2012.

In parallel to the international process, the European Commission with a view to complying with the international standards has undertaken its own review of the European Anti-Money Laundering framework. This revision consisted in an external study (the so called Deloitte study) on the application of the Third AMLD (Directive 2005/60/EC) and in extensive contacts and consultations with private stakeholders and civil society organisations, as well as with representatives of EU Member State regulatory and supervisory authorities and Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs).

The results of the Commission’s review were set out in a Report , addressed to EU Parliament and Council, where it was analysed how the different elements of the existing framework have been applied and how it may need to be changed, highlighting the necessity to introduce clarifications or refinements in a number of areas.

More specifically, the main problems in the current EU anti-money laundering/combating terrorist financing legislative framework are: (i) inconsistency with the recently revised international standards; (ii) different interpretation and application of rules across EU Member States; and (iii) inadequacies and loopholes with respect to the new money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

2. The EU Commission’s proposals Continue reading “The revision of the EU Anti-Money Laundering legal framework is fast approaching..”

(EPPO) European Public Prosecutor: also the European Parliament wants a say…

by Giuseppe RIZZO (Free Group Trainee)

How a simple “yes or no” could be complemented by a political dialogue

After almost two years since the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the Council of the European Union is still negotiating the rules concerning the institution and the action of the EPPO (see preparatory documents here).

According to art. 86  of the TFEU, this new body could be established with unanimity within the Council of the EU or with an enhanced cooperation by at least nine Member States. It is worth noting that unlike  the ordinary legislative procedure in the EU, art. 86 of the TFEU establishes a special legislative procedure where the Council has to take the final decision even if  the European Parliament can approve  or reject the Council’s text.. This institutional model  which can be sensible when international agreements are at stake (as the EP like the national parliaments can only ratify or reject them) , when applied at legislative level is not consistent with the general rule according to which EU legislation should result from an agreement between the Council which represent the national governments and the European Parliament as direct representative of EU Citizens.

To overcome this political and institutional imbalance the EP in the cases of legislation to be adopted by simple consent ,has established a practice through which it try to influence the position of the Council by adopting interim reports with recommendations. The latter even if not legally binding could have a political weight and should be taken in account by the Council if it wants avoid the risk of rejection of its text and the need to re-start from scratch a new procedure  (as it already happened after the rejection of some international  agreements).

The EP Interim reports    

On the EPPO proposal the European Parliament already adopted on 12th March 2014  in the previous legislature an interim resolution  which was focused on issues such as the jurisdiction of the future Institution,  if and how decisions taken by the prosecution could be appealable, the relations between the EPPO and other already existing Agencies and bodies such as Eurojust and OLAF.  The 2014 EP LIBE resolution highlighted, the relation between the Member States notably  in case of adoption of the EPPO regulation following the  “enhanced cooperation” procedure  (by so trying to frame the relation between participating and non-participating Member States).

One year after the LIBE Committee has drawn up another Interim Report that will be discussed next week by  the plenary in Strasbourg.

In this new report the LIBE Committee takes stock of the current state of negotiations in the Council, and focus on the most important characteristics of the future EPPO. Notwithstanding the reservations of several national parliaments LIBE confirms the necessity and urgency of building up the new body also to overcome the Member States persistent unwillingness to follow the  recommendations for prosecution issued by OLAF (followed only in 31% of the cases from 2006 to 2013).

LIBE also agree that for the time being that the competence of the future EPPO should be limited to offences relating to fraud against the financial interests of the Union, even if the spreading of the terrorist threat in the EU could had suggested a wider EPPO competence taking stock of the limits of Europol and Eurojust in this sensitive domain. But even if limited to the protection of financial interests the new competence should be further defined as nowadays there is not yet a uniform definition of what constitutes illegal activities “affecting the EU’s financial interests”. In principle this legal gap will be soon overcome by another legislative text currently negotiated between the EP and the Council [1], the so-called “PIF” Directive (from the French acronym: protection des intérêts financiers) which will also define the scope of the material competence of the future EPPO which will be the subject of an incoming post of this blog.

Structure and competence of the EPPO Continue reading “(EPPO) European Public Prosecutor: also the European Parliament wants a say…”

THE EU RESPONSE TO MIGRANT DEATHS: PROTECTION AND PREVENTION – OR POLICY LAUNDERING?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS Wednesday, 22 April 2015

by Steve Peers

On Monday, EU foreign and interior ministers adopted a ten-point plan in response to the recent huge death toll of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. There will be a summit on Thursday to examine the issue further, and then an EU Commission strategy proposed on May 13th. But for now, I want to examine the initial plan.

Overall, this is a very disappointing document. It’s not only vague on crucial details but more importantly focusses less on the situation of the migrants (addressing the root causes which cause them to move, and protection from drowning and persecution) and more on border control and repression. One point in the plan constitutes a rather crass example of ‘policy laundering’ – attempting to use a crisis to shove through an essentially unrelated policy objective.

Let’s look at the ten points of the EU plan in turn, then examine the ‘Australian solution’ and the ‘Christians only’ approach which some have suggested. For alternative solutions to the problem, see the proposals of the UN Special Rapporteur on Migrants, the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency, Patrick Kingsley (in the Guardian), Nando Sigona, and myself.

Reinforce the Joint Operations in the Mediterranean, namely Triton and Poseidon, by increasing the financial resources and the number of assets. We will also extend their operational area, allowing us to intervene further, within the mandate of Frontex;

This is the only one of the ten measures related directly to search and rescue, although it’s not clear if this is actually intended to be a search and rescue mission. The mandate of ‘Frontex’ (the EU’s border control agency) concerns border control, not search and rescue as such. Indeed there is no mention of search and rescue here, or in the rest of the plan. Nor is there any express mention in the plan of the recent loss of life. There are no details of the extent of the increase in financial resources and assets, or the extent to which the operational area will increase. Continue reading “THE EU RESPONSE TO MIGRANT DEATHS: PROTECTION AND PREVENTION – OR POLICY LAUNDERING?”

J.P.Jacqué : Le droit pour la Commission de retirer une proposition législative. A’ propos de l’arrêt du 14 avril 2015 (C‑409/13)

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON LE DROIT DE L’UNION EUROPEENNE

par Jean Paul Jacqué

L’existence d’un droit pour la Commission de retirer une de ses propositions a, de tout temps, constitué une pomme de discorde entre le Conseil et la Commission. Pour la Commission, le droit de retrait devait être considéré comme un corollaire du droit d’initiative que lui reconnaît le traité. Il s’appuie sur l’article TFUE qui indique que la Commission peut à tout moment modifier sa proposition avant que le Conseil n’ait statué. Le retrait serait l’une des variantes du pouvoir de modification. Dans la mesure où le Conseil peut amender une proposition de la Commission sans l’accord de celle-ci dès lors qu’il statue à l’unanimité, le retrait viendrait tempérer ce pouvoir du Conseil. Pour le Conseil, il ne saurait être question de reconnaître à la Commission ce qui s’apparenterait à un veto législatif. Dès lors que le Conseil réunissait l’unanimité pour amender une proposition de la Commission, cette dernière ne devait pas avoir le pouvoir de faire obstacle à la volonté du Conseil. L’argumentation de la Commission méconnait la philosophie initiale du système.  Si la Commission s’est vue reconnaître le droit de modifier sa proposition, c’est pour lui permettre de rejoindre, si elle de désirait, la position d’une majorité d’Etats membres afin de permettre l’adoption d’une proposition qui n’aurait pas recueilli l’unanimité. Cette situation n’avait rien avec un droit de retrait qui n’avait pas été envisagé par les pères fondateurs[2]

Jusqu’à présent, cette divergence de vues entre institutions n’avait pas provoqué de difficultés insurmontables. Le retrait unilatéral par la Commission a été pratiqué cinq fois, essentiellement lors de la Commission Delors. Les autres cas de retrait étaient plus consensuels. Il s’agissait essentiellement du retrait de propositions devenues caduques ou affectées par un changement de circonstances et il était généralement précédé par des consultations avec le Parlement et le Conseil. La Commission avait également pris l’habitude de procèder à des retraits « administratifs » lors de son entrée en fonction Ceux-ci concernaient des propositions anciennes qui n’avaient pas uscité l’intérêt du législateur. Elle pouvait s’appuyer sur un prétendu principe de discontinuité législative que connaissent de nombreux parlements nationaux et qui est soutenu par le Parlement européen lequel est favorable à la caducité des propositions non adoptées pendant la précédente législature avec des exceptions pour celles adoptées en première lecture ou celles dont il veut poursuivre l’examen. En raison de l’opposition du Conseil, ces retraits étaient généralement précédés des négociations interinstitutionnelles.

La Commission Juncker semble s’être affranchie de ces contraintes en procédant à des retraits systématiques concernant des propositions dont le Parlement souhaitait poursuivre l’examen ce qui a donné lieu à controverses[3]. Continue reading “J.P.Jacqué : Le droit pour la Commission de retirer une proposition législative. A’ propos de l’arrêt du 14 avril 2015 (C‑409/13)”

La crise de l’immigration dans l’Union : vivre et laisser mourir ?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED HERE 23 MARS 2015

 par Henri Labayle, CDRE

Une fois encore, la presse se fait justement l’écho de la crise migratoire frappant l’Union européenne, superlatifs à l’appui. Les mêmes mots, il y a quelques semaines, relataient déjà les mêmes inquiétudes et proféraient les mêmes contre-vérités. Avant que l’actualité ne les chasse comme des nuages que l’on sait programmés pour revenir, à la prochaine marée.

La publication du rapport trimestriel de Frontex en est la cause, rendant ainsi un hommage indirect aux efforts de transparence d’une Agence de l’Union souvent injustement décriée. Elle s’ajoute auxtravaux du Bureau européen d’asile et à ceux d’Eurostat. Cette publicité coïncidant avec la reprise des débats internes à l’Union mérite un éclairage particulier.

Les mois qui passent ne se ressemblent pas nécessairement sur le front migratoire et l’examen des faits est instructif, quitte à ce que leur mise en perspective avec les efforts de l’Union ne révèle les carences de celle-ci.

1. Des faits et des chiffres

La réalité est têtue : la pression migratoire sur l’Union européenne est sans précédent. Cette pression s’inscrit dans un contexte international particulièrement préoccupant comme en témoignent lescris d’alarme du Haut Commissariat aux Réfugiés et des ONG. Examiner l’importance des flux de demandeurs de protection relevant de la compétence du HCR permet, sinon de relativiser la gravité de la situation de l’Union européenne, du moins de mettre cette pression en perspective.

Ainsi, actuellement, pratiquement 4 millions de réfugiés syriens se trouvent aujourd’hui en Turquie, au Liban, en Jordanie, en Iraq et en Égypte, sans perspective aucune de retour dans leur pays d’origine dans un proche avenir. Leur présence fait peser sur ces Etats d’accueil une contrainte politique, économique et sociale hors du commun et, en tous cas, hors de propos avec celle subie par l’Union. Continue reading “La crise de l’immigration dans l’Union : vivre et laisser mourir ?”