Category: 3. Fundamental rights – Charter

EP STUDY : NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL AVENUES FOR FURTHER EU INTEGRATION

This study was requested by the European Parliament’s Committees on Legal Affairs and on Constitutional Affairs. It investigates national constitutional limits to further EU integration and explores ways to overcome them. It includes an in-depth examination of the constitutional systems of 12 Member States (Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom) and a bird’s eye view of all Member States. EU integration can be advanced by avoiding substantive constitutional obstacles in various ways. Overcoming the substantive obstacles requires managing national procedural constitutional hurdles. This is possible to the extent that the required broad political consensus exists.

AUTHOR(S) : Mr Leonard F.M. BESSELINK, Mrs Monica CLAES, Mrs Šejla IMAMOVIû, Mr Jan Herman REESTMAN.
This document is available on the Internet

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The central research question of this study is whether, and to what extent, national constitutions provide guidance for further European integration and reversely how the latter can take place in full respect for national constitutional identities.

2. The research involved an in-depth analysis of a representative selection of Member States: Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the UK; and a bird’s eye view of all Member States. The study conducts a cross-national comparative analysis of the national constitutional approaches to EU integration, on the basis of which some final conclusions are offered.

3. This study deals with the relationship between the EU and national constitutions mainly from a national perspective. But there is also another side of the story, taking the EU perspective.
The EU Treaties (TEU and TFEU) acknowledge the central role of national constitutions, for instance when they require ratification by all the Member States ‘in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements’ for their entry into force, for their amendment and for the accession of new Member States. This presumably implies more than a mere procedural rule and acknowledges that the Treaties should also substantively be in accordance with national constitutions, or at least, it grants the Member States the opportunity, if their constitution so requires, to ensure that they do not enter into Treaties which would be unconstitutional.
On a more general level, the EU expects its Member States to comply with the common fundamental constitutional values that all Member States share, and which also apply to the European Union (Arts. 2 and 7 TEU). More specifically with respect to fundamental rights protection, the Treaty, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the CJEU case law explicitly seek to connect EU human rights to the common constitutional traditions of the Member States. Yet, under the Treaties, the EU is not only bound to respect the common constitutional values of the Member States.
In addition, Article 4(2) TEU obliges the Union to respect ‘their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government’.
Accordingly, if the Union should fail to respect these national identities as inherent in their fundamental constitutional and political structures, it would infringe not only those identities, but also the Treaty obligation to respect them. Whether this is indeed the case is, as a matter of EU law, to be decided ultimately by the Court of Justice of the Union, and not unilaterally by the Member States.
In addition, the Union must, under Article 4(2) TEU, respect the Member States’ essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.
The Treaty thus recognises that there are ‘essential State functions’ which remain with the Member States and which the EU must respect.
What exactly these functions are is not clear, beyond those mentioned in the provision.
On the other hand, and despite the central role of national constitutions in the EU constitutional edifice, Member States cannot invoke their national constitutions to escape compliance with EU law before the Court of Justice of the European Union. And even before national courts, national constitutional law should not, as a matter of EU law, take priority over conflicting provisions of national law.
Indeed, the principle of primacy of EU law,1 which is firmly settled in the case law of the CJEU, and has been confirmed in Declaration 17 annexed to the TEU, applies to national constitutional law as well. With respect to fundamental rights, more specifically, Article 53 of the Charter does not lead to a different conclusion.

4. Turning the perspective to national constitutions, it can be said that, in general, constitutions generally perform the four main functions of
* constituting the polity, which may be understood as expressing the basic social contract;
* organising and structuring the exercise of public authority and dividing powers between the various branches;
* limiting the exercise of public authority, which also includes fundamental rights protection of individuals and
* expressing common values of society and/or carrying its ‘national identity’.
As power-organizing tools, two of the main functions of constitutions go in different directions.
One is the enabling function of constitutions: constitutions constitute the institutions which are to exercise public authority and empower these institutions.
A second function is associated with ‘constitutionalism’ in a narrow sense and concerns the limiting function of constitutions: constitutions limit the exercise of public authority, for instance via human rights and a division of powers.
These different functions of a constitution are also reflected with regard to EU integration: national constitutions help to enable, and limit.

5. In the context of participation in the EU, the enabling function of constitutions is illustrated by those constitutional provisions which allow for a ‘limitation of sovereignty’ or a ‘transfer of sovereign powers’ to the EU.
However, national constitutions not only enable, but also set limits to further EU integration.
Membership of the European Union challenges the national constitutions in various ways: powers, which under the constitution have been attributed to national bodies, are transferred to the EU, and hence they are exercised differently from the way it was intended under the national constitution.
The EU is, as such, not bound by those national constitutions, but does indeed require the Member States to apply EU law even if it should infringe the national constitution.
Accordingly, the supremacy of the Constitution itself is challenged.
Seen in this light, it should come as no surprise that many Member States, while having adapted their constitutions to allow for membership and facilitate it, have at the same time retained constitutional limits and reservations, and impose conditions on EU law.
Moreover, constitutions are not only often considered to be expressions of the will of the people to form a polity (political autonomy) and to be governed under the constitution, but many constitutions also legally and judicially protect this foundational will.
This may take different forms, for instance by protecting the sovereignty of the state, statehood itself or the national nature of democracy, or a combination of these.

6. To put the constitutional obstacles to further EU integration in proper perspective, the report draws two main distinctions.
The first concerns a distinction between further integration under the current EU treaty framework and further integration by means of new (EU amendment) treaties.
The second distinction is that between substantive and procedural constitutional obstacles.
Generally, the substantive constitutional obstacles can be overcome by the adoption of a treaty (amendment), by the adoption of a constitutional amendment or by a combination of both.
For the adoption of such amendments, national procedural constitutional hurdles have to be taken.
Continue reading “EP STUDY : NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL AVENUES FOR FURTHER EU INTEGRATION”

Steve PEERS:New EU rules on maritime surveillance: will they stop the deaths and push-backs in the Mediterranean?

by Steve Peers Professor of Law, Law School, University of Essex  

Introduction

When the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was first adopted, in its initial non binding form, in 2000, many asked what certain of the rights contained in the Charter had to do with the EU at all.

Most notably, why mention the right to life, when the EU did not carry out its own death penalty, or have coercive forces which killed anyone? Of course, it would seem odd to have a human rights charter without including the right to life, and the EU had already developed a detailed foreign policy strategy opposing the death penalty worldwide.

Subsequently the right to life also became relevant to the development of the Common European Asylum System. But more strikingly, the significant death toll of migrants in the Mediterranean has widely been blamed on EU policies – whether those policies are carried out by the Member States’ authorities alone, or by those authorities as coordinated by the EU’s borders agency, Frontex, which began operations in 2005. Moreover, the national authorities and Frontex have often been blamed for ‘push-backs’: the forced return of migrants’ vessels to unsafe countries, which were condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in its 2012 judgment in Hirsi v Italy.

The response to these criticisms was the adoption of rules governing maritime surveillance operations coordinated by Frontex, first of all in the form of a Council measure implementing the Schengen Borders Code. A majority in the European Parliament (EP) voted against this measure, but they did not constitute a majority of the Members of the EP (MEPs), some MEPs being absent. So the EP instead sued to annul the Council’s measure before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and won its case, on the grounds that a measure concerning human rights and coercive measures had to be adopted by means of the EU’s legislative process.

That meant that the European Commission had to propose a legislative measure, which it did in April 2013. At first, a hard-line group of Member States opposed most of the provisions in this proposal concerning search and rescue and disembarkation (ie the rules on the destination of migrants who were intercepted and rescued), even after the particularly tragic loss of 300 migrants’ lives in autumn 2013.

However, these Member States relented, and the European Parliament also pressed to retain and improve upon the Commission’s proposal. The result was that the EP and the Council (made up of Member States’ ministers) both agreed on their respective positions on the proposal in December 2013, and then both agreed on a joint deal on the legislation by February 2014.

The legislation will therefore be formally adopted in April this year, before the EP elections in May. The crucial question is therefore whether the EU will then be doing enough to address the loss of life and push-backs in the Mediterranean.

The new Regulation

The previous Decision contained binding rules on interception, and non-binding rules on search and rescue and disembarkation. However, the CJEU said that even the latter category of rules was binding.

As noted above, a group of Member States wanted to water down (as it were) most of these rules in the new Regulation, but was ultimately unsuccessful.

There are new rules on search and rescue, which retain (at the EP’s behest) the Commission’s detailed proposal on this issue, including particularly the definition of whether vessels can be considered in a state of alert, uncertainty or distress.

Provided that sinking vessels are detected in time and that these rules are properly applied, the Regulation should therefore ensure that migrants are rescued from drowning wherever possible.

 On the other hand, the situation is more complex as regards the rules on protection of those migrants who are potentially at risk of persecution, torture or other forms of ill-treatment in their country of origin (or another country).

The focus of this analysis is therefore upon those rules – followed by an assessment of the issue of the accountability of Frontex.

Protection and disembarkation rules

Continue reading “Steve PEERS:New EU rules on maritime surveillance: will they stop the deaths and push-backs in the Mediterranean?”

Transparency in the EU : the distance between principles and Institution’s practices is widening up..

By Emilio De Capitani

As clearly explained in the previous post (Henri Labayle study on Access to documents) Transparency and good administration have become a core element of the post-Lisbon Constitutional Framework (1) However, notwithstanding the recurrent rhetoric declarations and promises in these pre-electoral days by several political figures at European and national level, four years after the entry into force of the Treaty and of the Charter the situation is even worse than before.
It is then more than likely that the the best supporters of the Eurosceptic movements are in these days the EU institutions and the Member States which are still blocking the reform of the EU rules on access to documents and whose daily practices are often contrary to the Treaties, the legislation into force, the ECJ jurisprudence and probably their own internal rules

A dead end for the rules on access to documents (Regulation 1049/01) ?

The EU legislative framework on access to documents dates back to 2001 when Regulation 1049/01 was adopted. It was against the unwillingness of the Commission and of several Members States but it was a success because of a (temporary) strong political majority in the European Parliament, a skilled Swedish Council Presidency and clear support by the civil society.

However in the following years notwithstanding a growing support by the European Court of Justice Jurisprudence the Council and Commission practice has tried to rebuild the previous opaque practices. Paradoxically the turning point has been after the groundbreaking “Turco” Case (C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council and Commission, judgment of 1 July 2008) by which the Court considered that openness “contributes to strengthening democracy by enabling citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis for a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights”(Sweden and Turco v Council, paragraph 46). In this perspective the Court of justice considered that it was also admissible to have access even to the Institution’s legal service opinions notably when dealing with the soundness of legislative works (2).
Continue reading “Transparency in the EU : the distance between principles and Institution’s practices is widening up..”

Henri LABAYLE : Openness, transparency and access to documents and information in the EU

Source : European Parliament Policy Department: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs
Full text of the Study
Author: Henri Labayle, professor at University de Pau et des pays de l’Adour (FR)

INTRODUCTION

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

1.1 Constitutional framework
1.1.1 Principle of openness
1.1.2 Principle of transparency
1.1.3 Right of access to documents
1.2 Regulatory framework of the right of access to documents
1.2.1 System for the right of access
1.2.2 Exercise of the right of access
1.3 Case-law framework of the right of access to documents
1.3.1 Principle of right of access
1.3.2 Content of right of access

EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

2.1 Details of comparison
2.1.1 The Council of Europe
2.1.2 National comparisons
2.2 Institutional practices relating to access to documents
2.2.1 Practice of the Commission
2.2.2 Practice of the Council
2.2.3 Practice of the European Parliament
2.2.4 Details of comparison

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study is an update to a previous study about case law in relation to the right of (1) access to documents. It puts into perspective the Union’s institutional practice in relation to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The right of access to documents in the Union is part of a legal context updated by the Treaty of Lisbon. The principles of transparency and good governance have constitutional implications for the Union’s institutions, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union establishes them as a fundamental right. While the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been a success during the last 10 years, it now needs to be revised to bring it up to date.
In fact, the constitutional progress represented by the Treaty of Lisbon has been boosted by advances in case law.
The challenge of the revision process, requested by the European Parliament since 2006 and initiated in 2008, involves giving consideration to the following two elements: the declaration of a fundamental right and the important lessons learnt from case law.
This body of case law and observation of the Union’s institutional practice have given rise to the following significant remarks.

I – The first remark concerns the very nature of the right of access.

The combination of the Treaty of Lisbon with the case law relating to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 now creates a different perception of the right of access. Before being an institutional challenge within the Union, requiring institutions to have the same amount of information when performing their duties, access to documents has now become a right of the individual. This is a general trend. It is noted in comparative law and in European law in particular, with this being confirmed by the Convention of the Council of Europe on Access to Official Documents. The nature of the obstacles it describes preventing the right of access is largely the same as that under EU law. On the other hand, the Union does not give a specific independent authority the guarantee of access to documents, unlike many of its Member States.

II – A second series of remarks derives from the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Apart from the far-reaching nature of this right, in less than five years, the Court has given its verdict accordingly on exercising the right of access in relation to administrative, legislative and judicial matters.
1. The right of access to documents is linked to the Union’s democratic nature. Transparency guarantees greater legitimacy and accountability of the administration in a democratic system because citizens need to have the opportunity to understand the considerations underpinning EU regulations in order to exercise their democratic rights (Turco, Access Info Europe cases).
2. Access must be as broad as possible, thereby reducing the internal `space to think’ or the `negotiation space’ which the institutions want. Therefore, protecting the decision-making process within the Union excludes any general confidentiality, especially in the field of legislation (Borax, Access Info and MyTravel cases).
3. The scope of the various exceptions is tightly controlled. Therefore, the major challenge posed by the exception concerning international relations does not automatically entail confidentiality (In’t Veld cases). Similarly, court proceedings are not excluded from transparency under the guise of respect for the proper administration of justice (API case). Legal opinions are not necessarily bound by confidentiality, especially on legislative matters (Turco and MyTravel cases), no more than the identity of Member States is protected by confidentiality during the legislative procedure (Access Info Europe case).
4. Combining data protection schemes may require ‘switching’ from a general regulation to a special regulation on data protection (Bavarian Lager case) and on monitoring activities. Legal protection for confidentiality (Bavarian Lager case) and a `general presumption’ of confidentiality (Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau case) may reduce the scope of transparency.
5. The documents supplied by Member States are not covered by general confidentiality (IFAW judgment).

III – There are also plenty of lessons which may be drawn from the practice of the three EU institutions, by reading the annual reports required by the regulation and looking at certain national practices.

1. The number of applications for access in the European Union is in decline. This is not in keeping with the practices in some Member States or even in states outside the EU such as the United States or Australia.
2. The volume of refusals to provide access remains proportionally large and is tending to rise.
3. The number of applications for access in the areas of Common and Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) confirms the sensitive nature of these matters.

The type of public interested in gaining access to documents should raise questions for the Union on two counts.
Firstly, professionals are the main group requesting access to documents (particularly Commission documents) and, secondly, university institutions are nowadays the most efficient channels for transmitting information and guaranteeing administrative transparency. The glaring lack of interest from ordinary citizens in transparency must provide some food for thought.

INTRODUCTION

There is an ever-growing demand for openness and transparency in modern societies. The European Union is also subject to this demand, although it is not necessarily successful in finding solutions which meet people’s expectations.2.
The Union has undergone a sea change, from a diplomatic approach to dealing with records, where secrecy is the rule, to an institutional system requiring a democratic basis.
Firstly, and mainly as a result of the accession of new Member States, which are sensitive to this issue, the European Union made some of its documents available for public access. Declaration 17 annexed to the Treaty of Maastricht referred to the link between the transparency of the decision-making process and the democratic nature of the institutions, but its scope remained limited. Two Commission communications on transparency and access to documents were then published, followed by a `Code of Conduct’3 adopting the principle of public access to Council and Commission documents.
Secondly, the Treaty of Amsterdam enshrined these principles in primary law. Firstly, Article 1 of the treaty stated that decisions are taken as openly as possible’, thereby recognising the principle of openness. Secondly, Article 255 TEC provided a legal basis for governing the right of public access to EU documents. This would be achieved with the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents . Finally, the White Paper on governance 2001 would highlight the need for involvement from and openness towards citizens to restore confidence in the Union.

Until then, the principles of `openness’ and `transparency’, which were used frequently in common parlance, had actually fulfilled more of a political than a legal function. Highlighted by the European Union with the aim of abating the crisis of confidence over the administration, these principles still had very little regulatory force, unlike the right of access to documents, which would be developed under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

The scope of this study does not extend to a more in-depth examination of this historical period, but it does cover two of its main features. Firstly, openness and transparency basically boiled down to just one thing, access to information; and, secondly, the guarantee from the judicature was key to ensuring that this right had real meaning.
Case law was intended to make the judicature a prominent player in the exercise of the right of access to documents, on the instigation of the European Ombudsman, thereby conferring upon it the status of a real fundamental right.

The prospect of this development was upset by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. This treaty outlined a new legal framework both in terms of the functioning of the Union’s administration and of European citizens’ rights.

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS

The Treaty of Lisbon changes not only the perception of the right of access to documents in the Union, but also the conditions under which the administration and the legislature perform their duties. Nowadays, the principles of openness and transparency feature in EU primary law, which should have consequences for the right of access to documents as one of the ways of applying that law.

1.1 Constitutional framework
The text of the treaty is clear: the principle of openness is set out in it. Hence its implementation via the principle of transparency and principle of access to documents6.

1.1.1 Principle of openness
This is a general, ‘umbrella’ term incorporating both the principle of transparency and the principle of participation.
Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) therefore echoes the Treaty of Amsterdam by stating that it marks ‘a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’7.

The treaty conveys the specific meaning of this principle in two places. In Article 10(3) on the ‘functioning of the Union’, under Title II on ‘democratic principles’, the TEU confirms that ‘every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen’. The principle of openness is therefore linked for the first time to the ‘democratic life’ of the Union and to ‘representative democracy’. The Union is democratic because it is ‘open’ to its citizens, which is confirmed by the following article.

Article 11(2) TEU is aimed directly at the institutions, which must maintain ‘an open, transparent and regular dialogue’ with representative associations and civil society. It therefore adds an active dimension to the principle of openness.
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) reinforces the basis of the principle by setting out the terms for its implementation in Article 15(1) TFEU. The ‘Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies’ have a duty to conduct their work ‘as openly as possible’ and this is ‘in order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society’. This requirement requires several comments.

At this stage, the principle of openness in the Union was still regarded as a prerequisite for its functioning more than as a right of its citizens. This explains why it had a very wide scope of application, extending across the whole administrative machinery. Although it did not have an absolute remit and included no obligations in terms of results, the ‘promotion’ objective assigned to the Union still required the Union to adopt a dynamic approach.

Finally, Article 298(1) and (2) TFEU provided a vital addition to the regulatory transposition of the principle of openness. Stating that in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union ‘shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration’, it conferred on the Union’s legislature the power to ‘establish provisions to that end’.

1.1.2 Principle of transparency

As the Court of Justice confirmed in a leading case discussed below, ‘a lack of information and debate is capable of giving rise to doubts in the minds of citizens, not only as regards the lawfulness of an isolated act, but also as regards the legitimacy of the decision-making process as a whole’8. With those words, the Union judge put the debate on transparency9 squarely in the camp of legitimacy and democracy. From his perspective, ‘it is precisely openness in this regard that contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increasing their confidence in them by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated’.

Previously and without yet mentioning the ‘requirement of transparency’10, the case law of the General Court and the Court of Justice had been based on Declaration 17 annexed to the Treaty of Maastricht11, in the absence of another more explicit text. Once this text became available with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the judicature reinforced its argument. Transparency guarantees that ‘the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system’12. It enables them ‘to carry out genuine and efficient monitoring of the exercise of the powers vested in the Community institutions’13 . ‘Only where there is appropriate publicity of the activities of the legislature, the executive and the public administration in general, is it possible for there to be effective, efficient supervision, inter alia at the level of public opinion, of the operations of the governing organization and also for genuinely participatory organizational models to evolve as regards relations between the administration and the administered.’14

The procedural transparency and institutional transparency referred to in the TEU and TFEU merged in the Treaty of Lisbon to give some practical meaning to the Union’s action15.

The principle’s normative scope still remained limited,16 but the provisions of Article 11 TEU indicate that the battle lines had shifted. The Union’s institutions now had an obligation to apply the principle ‘by appropriate means’. Whether this involved the ‘open, transparent and regular dialogue’ with civil society stated in Article 11(2) TEU or the EU’s’actions being transparent’, which requires ‘broad consultations’ under paragraph 3, the respect for ‘democratic principles’ mentioned under Title II TEU exerted new pressure on the institutions, especially when it came to access to information, and by extension, documents. Therefore, this citizen’s right shifts from being a judgment call to being exercised in a regulatory context.

The consequences arising from this change of perspective were significant. The call for openness and transparency was no longer an abstract reference in this case, but represented a condition for the democratic legitimacy of the rule of the Union. The treaty ‘legalised’ principles that could, one day, be interpreted on the basis of case law, if, for example, a legislative act has been adopted outside this participatory dialogue required by the treaty.

1.1.3 Right of access to documents

The public’s right to access institutional documents17 was asserted in the Union by way of regulation before being enshrined in the founding treaties. The implementing regulation came before the constitutional declaration in this case, with the judge pointing out that ‘the domestic legislation of most Member States now enshrines in a general manner the public’s right of access to documents held by public authorities as a constitutional or legislative principle’18.
This right is based politically on the principle of transparency. This was confirmed by the Court of Justice in 2007: its ‘aim is to improve the transparency of the Community decision-making process, since such openness inter alia guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system’19 . As the Court points out, ‘the possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights’20.

Legally speaking, this right was therefore established initially on the basis of Article 255 TEC, which gave citizens the right to access the documents of the three main institutions. It subsequently gave rise to a substantial body of case law without the Court of Justice going as far as to establish a general principle. Its general wording in the TEC explained its lack of direct effect21, with the treaty instructing derived law to provide content for it. Nevertheless, at this point the right of access changed from a simple option granted on a discretionary basis to the administered by the institutions to a true ‘subjective, fundamental right’22 granted to those targeted by Article 255 TEC.
The Treaty of Lisbon amends this law as it stands significantly in two respects.

First of all, the Charter of Fundamental Rights makes this access a fundamental right. Article 42 has the heading ‘Right of access to documents’, implying that ‘any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents’. The explanatory notes accompanying the Charter point out that this Article 42 ‘has been taken’23 from Article 255 TEC, which provided the basis on which Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 had been adopted, with the Convention wishing to extend its scope.
Advocate General Maduro emphasised this change in his conclusions on the case Sweden v Commission cited above with this ‘protection of the right of access under ever higher norms’: ‘Since the right of access to documents of the institutions has become a fundamental right of constitutional import linked to the principles of democracy and openness, any piece of secondary legislation regulating the exercise of that right must be interpreted by reference to it, and limits placed on it by that legislation must be interpreted even more restrictively.’24

When referring to the relationship between Article 42 of the Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), this EU judge therefore stated that ‘with respect to the right of access to documents of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, the Charter provides for a special fundamental right’25.

The TFEU itself has also changed the legal environment of the right of access. This has happened, first and foremost, because the protection desired by Member States regarding the confidentiality of the Council’s work disappeared in Article 207(3) TEC 26.
On the other hand, Article 15(1) TFEU confirmed the requirements for ‘good governance’ by providing specific content for the principles of openness and transparency. In paragraph 3 the ways of exercising the right of access to documents on a compulsory basis are expressed in far more precise terms than in Article 255 TEC. The removal of the inter-governmental pillars and the downgrading of the institutional treatment of the JHA and CFSP allow it to cover all the Union’s work, which must be carried out ‘as openly as possible’.

A literal analysis of Article 15 TFEU highlights that this statement is part of an overall initiative. While the Union’s governance requires its work to be conducted ‘openly’ in paragraph 1, paragraph 3(3) of the same article refers to the proceedings of each relevant EU administrative entity being ‘transparent’. Therefore, the systematic nature of the triangle of openness/transparency/document access is outlined in the treaty. Moreover, it clearly states the scope of the obligations incumbent upon the ‘institutions, bodies, offices and agencies’. While the call for the Union’s work to be conducted ‘as openly as possible’ is not necessarily an indication of a constraint, on the other hand, the conditions for the right of access to documents are pinned down in a more binding manner.

Article 15(3) (1) TFEU starts off by defining a right ‘subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with this paragraph’. It does not grant the legislature the power of discretion to decide what these ‘principles and conditions’ are. It is the duty of the legislature to implement the right of access allowing EU citizens to enjoy this right. The definition of its general principles and conditions for exercising it is an absolute requirement, governed by ordinary legislative procedure.

The third subparagraph of the same article then reinforces the obligations imposed on the relevant entities: they must ensure that their ‘proceedings are transparent’ and they have to draw up in their own Rules of Procedure ‘specific provisions regarding access’ to documents. This presupposes therefore that the right of access has been regulated before.
Lastly – and this is an important observation – the authors of the treaty expand considerably the group of institutions that are bound by the obligations. The group is no longer just made up of the three main institutions, but in a very general manner incorporates the ‘Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies’. The penultimate subparagraph of paragraph 3 emphasises in the case of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) that they ‘shall be subject to this paragraph only when exercising their administrative tasks’.
This generalisation, which is already taken into account by a number of internal agencies and institutions, therefore reinforces the need for a new text on the right of access, failing which a right based on the Treaties may not be applied.

The value added offered by the Treaty of Lisbon can therefore be summarised as follows: on the one hand, the treaty establishes a real fundamental right of access to documents and, on the other hand, it tightly controls the exceptions to a right whose scope has been generalised. The value added deriving from this for individuals then allows a hierarchy of challenges to be established: before being an institutional challenge within the Union, requiring institutions to have the same amount of information when performing their duties, the access to documents has now become a right of the individual. This shift completes the structural change initiated by the Union’s judicature 20 years ago.

In this legal context, the regulation of the right of access applied by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 13 years ago seems considerably out of touch nowadays. Both the ‘general principles’ and legitimate ‘limits’ governing the right of access, mentioned in Article 15(3) TFEU, need to be revamped by the legislator by means of the ordinary legislative procedure, a fact which should not be forgotten.

The need to update the regulation actually comes from the triangle described earlier, linking the duties of openness, transparency and access to documents 27. It extends beyond the framework of Article 15 TFEU alone, for instance, in light of Article 298 TFEU. Furthermore, the strictly minimalist approach of the Commission’s second regulatory proposal28 derives more from the amendment to the previous regulation than from the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Consequently, with regard to both the scope of the right of access and the particular issues relating to the sensitive nature of some classified documents or codifying the advances made in case law for some categories of documents, a new text needs to be adopted.

1.2 Regulatory framework of the right of access to documents

A quick recap of what this framework29 entails will make it possible to assess not only the challenges involved with its revision but also the significant impact of the case law from the Court of Justice and the General Court.

1.2.1 System for the right of access

As a result of the gap in the Treaties, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has become the cornerstone of the right of access to administrative documents, which has led the Court of Justice to focus specific attention on the reason for this in order to clarify its use.
This reason provides some guiding principles:
• Access to documents is linked to the principles of transparency and openness referred to by the Treaties, with the regulation consolidating current practices.
• The purpose of the regulation is ‘to give the fullest possible effect’30 to the right of access in its definition of its principles and limits. Therefore, in principle, ‘all documents should be accessible to the public’, in other words, ‘any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person’ residing there.
• The right of access assumes a particular meaning ‘in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity’ and it is applicable to CFSP and JHA.

On this point, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides an extremely broad definition of a ‘document’ as Article 3(a) defines it as ‘any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording) concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution’s sphere of responsibility’. In specific terms, each institution has therefore been granted the procedural mechanisms required to obtain access and, by applying Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, they produce an annual report about its application.

In addition to this key text, other specific texts should be mentioned31 whose interaction with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 caused difficulties which led the Court of Justice to settle matters (see below)32. The following table33 can provide accordingly a summary of the current state of play….

Continue reading …

NOTES
1 Public access to the European Union documents, State of the law at the time of revision of Regulation 1049/2001′, PE 393.287, 2008 and `Classified information in light of the Lisbon Treaty’, PE 425.616, 2010.
2 Specific reference will be made to our studies Public access to the European Union documents, State of the law at the time of revision of Regulation 1049/2001′, PE 393.287, 2008 and Classified information in light of the Lisbon Treaty’, PE 425.616, 2010.
3 Code of Conduct concerning public access to Council and Commission documents, OJ L 340 31.12.1993, p. 37.
4 OJ L 145, 31.05.2001, p. 43.
5 COM(2001) 428.
6 A. Allemano, ‘Unpacking the principle of openness in EU Law, transparency, participation and democracy’, European Law Review 2014 (forthcoming).
7 J. Mendes, ‘Participation and the róle of law after Lisbon: a legal view on article 11 TEU’, CMLRev 2011.1849.
8 ECJ, 1 July 2008, Kingdom of Sweden and Turco v Council, C-39/05 P and 52/05P, paragraph 59.
9 M. Hillebrandt, D. Curtin, A. Meijer, ‘Transparency in the Council of ministers of the EU: institutional approach’, Amsterdam Centre for European law, Working paper 2012-04.
10 CFI, 25 April 2007, WWF European Policy Programme/Council, T-264/04, paragraph 61.
11 CFI, 17 June 1998, Svenska journalistfórbundet v Council, T-174/95, ECR II-2289 paragraph 66; CFI, 14 October 1999, Bavarian Lager/Commission, T-309/97, ECR II-3217, paragraph 36.
12 CFI, 7 February 2002, Kuijer/Council, T-2011/00, paragraph 52 and ECJ, 6 March 2003, Interporc/Commission C-41/00 P, ECR p. I-2125 paragraph 39.
13 ECJ, 7 December 1999, Interporc v Commission, paragraph 39.
14 Opinion of Tesauro under ECJ, 30 April 1996, Netherlands v Council, C-58/94, ECR I-2169 paragraph 14.
15 D. Curtin, ‘Judging EU secrecy’, Amsterdam Centre for European law, Working paper 2012-07.
16 See A. Meijers,’Understanding the Complex Dynamics of Transparency’, and S. Castellano et A. Ortiz, ‘Legal Framework for e-transparency and the right to public access in the EU’, Transatlantic Conference on Transparency Research, Utrecht, 2012.
17 The analysis will continue to focus on Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, apart from provisions relating, for example, to environmental law.
18 ECJ, 30 April 1996, Netherlands v Council, C-58/94, ECR I-2169 paragraph 34.
19 ECJ, 18 December 2007, Kingdom of Sweden v Commission, C-64/05, ECR I-11389, paragraph 54.
20 id paragraph 46; see also CJEU, 17 October 2013, Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11 P.
21 In spite of the calls of some of its Advocate Generals or the positions of the CFI: Advocate General Tesauro speaks of a ‘fundamental civil right’ in the case Netherlands v Council (paragraph 19) and the CFI talks about a ‘principle of the right to information’ (CFI, 19 July 1999, Hautala v Council, T-14/98, ECR. p. II- 2489, paragraph 87) or of the ‘principle of transparency’ (CFI, 7 February 2002, Kuijer v Council, T-211/00, ECR p. II-485, paragraph 52).
22 Opinion of Maduro under ECJ, 18 December 2007 cited above, ECR I-11389, paragraph 40.
23 By mentioning its extension to the ‘bodies and agencies’ of the EU.
24 Opinion of Maduro under ECJ, 18 December 2007 cited above, ECR I-11389, paragraphs 40-42.
25 GC, 29 November 2012, Gaby Thesing v ECB, T-590/10 paragraphs 72-73.
26 ‘For the purpose of this paragraph, the Council shall define the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity, with a view to allowing greater access to documents in those cases, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of its decision-making process. In any event, when the Council acts in its legislative capacity, the results of votes and explanations of vote as well as statements in the minutes shall be made public.’
27 Acknowledged by the Council in its 2012 annual report on exercising the right of access, p.7.
28 COM(2011) 73.
29 For a more in-depth look at the regulatory framework and the associated case law up until 2008, refer to our study ‘Public access to the European Union documents, State of the law at the time of revision of Regulation 1049/2001’, PE 393.287, 2008.
30 CJEU, 21 July 2011, Sweden and MyTravel v Commission, C-506/08 P cited above, paragraph 73 and CJEU, 17 October 2013, Access Info Europe, C-280/11 P cited above, paragraph 28.

EU gives US six months to come clean on visa policy

Published on EurActiv (http://www.euractiv.com)
Source URL: http://www.euractiv.com/justice/eu-gives-usa-deadline-reciprocat-news-533275
Published: 05 February 2014

EXCLUSIVE / The European Commission has told the United States to lift visa requirements on Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Croatia, whose citizens still need an entry permit to travel to the country.

Background

Back in 2008, when the nationals of twelve EU countries were subject to the visa requirement to travel to the US, the Commission warned that it may force American diplomats to apply for visas to travel to the European Union.

At that time, nationals of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia were excluded from the US Visa Waiver Programme, which allows visa-free travel. Washington has been refusing to grant visa-free access to US territory on a bloc-wide basis, saying it had to first ensure that each individual country fulfils its stringent security requirements.

At that time, EU officials have accused the US of attempting to undermine the Union’s common visa policy and force individual countries to agree to additional security measures that are in violation with Union rules on aviation security and data protection. [more]

The citizens of most EU countries travel without visas to a list of foreign countries, listed in annex II of Council Regulation No 539/2001.  But the nationals of some new EU member states still need a visa to travel to countries such as the United States, Canada or Australia. A regulation which entered into force on 20 December requires EU countries to “react in common” on visa matters, especially in cases where foreign countries “subjects [EU] citizens to differing treatment”.

If within six months the problem is not solved, the EU could introduce visas for US diplomats, the Commission warned. But diplomats of the countries concerned told EurActiv they would continue to negotiate bilaterally to solve the problem.

New EU regulation on visa matters

According to the new regulation, the Commission can temporarily suspend the EU’s own visa exemptions on foreign countries if they have not lifted their visa requirements within six month. The Commission has warned in the past that such rules may force American diplomats to apply for visas to travel to the European Union, if Washington doesn’t lift the visa requirement for individual EU countries (see background).

The new legislation is an initiative of the European Parliament, which in a 2012 report drew a list of third countries maintaining visa requirements on some EU countries. Canada requires visas for nationals of Bulgaria and Romania, while Australia in theory applies a unified system of treatment of visa requests to all EU countries, but its visa grant to nationals of Bulgaria and Romania is by far the lowest. According to MEPs, the Lisbon Treaty gives new powers to the Union to request that its member countries are treated as a whole and that the USA reciprocates on visa policy.

US pressure on data exchange

The four EU countries were reportedly asked by Washington to sign certain bilateral agreements as a precondition for benefitting from the US Visa Waiver Program. One of them is a 2003 provision for the exchange of terrorism screening information (HSPD-6), which called for the establishment of a single consolidated watchlist to improve the identification, screening, and tracking of known or suspected terrorists and their supporters [more].

Another is the agreement on Preventing and Combating Serious Crime (PSCS), requiring signatory countries to share biometric and other data of individuals, for the purpose of preventing, detecting and investigating serious criminal activity and terrorism, on a query basis. The US has signed such agreements with a number of EU countries already.

But the European Commission is reportedly not happy that individual countries sign data exchange agreements with the USA in the absence of a so-called EU-US Umbrella Agreement on data protection, which ensures EU citizens keep their rights when their data is processed in the US.

Diplomats from the countries lacking reciprocity in their visa affairs told EurActiv that their capitals would notify the Commission of their situation with third countries before the deadline of 9 February. According to the new regulation, if the US still applies visas for those countries 90 days following notification, the Commission may decide to suspend EU visa exemption for “certain categories of US nationals”, a jargon term referring to holders of diplomatic passports.

However, diplomats said they would pursue bilateral negotiations as well, suggesting they did not put too much hope in the EU common effort. Indeed, when the new regulation was adopted in December, it was accompanied by a statement by several member states who said that while raising the issue, the EU countries would also “take into account potential adverse political consequences that might arise from such proposals or decisions for the external relations, both of the Union and its Member States”.  “This applies in particular to external relations with strategic partners,” says the statement, signed by Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, but also Poland, a country under US visa requirement.

Next Steps

  • 9 Feb.: Deadline for the EU countries who are still under visa requirement to notify the Commission on their situation;
  • March: EU countries can ask the Commission that the EU suspends the visa exemption for certain categories of US nationals;
  • June: At the latest six months after publication of the regulation, the Commission may decide that the suspension of the visa obligation should take effect.

Steven PEERS : Pirates of the Indian Ocean: Legal Base and Democratic Debate

Source : http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/pirates-of-indian-ocean-legal-base-and.html#more

Thursday, 30 January 2014

Despite their central role in the world of EU law, legal base disputes often confound those outside the fairy-tale duchy of Luxembourg and the Brussels beltway, in particular when everyone agrees as to the substance of the issue concerned. And indeed, everyone agrees that the pirates in the Indian Ocean are a bad thing (except, presumably, the pirates themselves), and that the EU should establish (as it has done) a military action to combat them.

But what happens if the EU force catches the pirates? No-one wants the pirates coming to Europe to be tried, and it wouldn’t do to send them to Guantanamo. It would certainly be ironic if they could be forced to walk the plank, but that would violate their right to life. So they must be handed over to nearby countries in East Africa, for prosecution in those states, and everyone agrees that the EU must negotiate agreements to this end with the countries concerned.

One such treaty is between the EU and Mauritius, and the European Parliament (EP) has challenged the Council’s decision to conclude it on two separate grounds: the wrong legal base, and a failure to inform the EP sufficiently (Case C-658/11). The Advocate-General’s opinion, delivered today, is worthy of detailed analysis.


The legal base issue: foreign policy, or development and judicial cooperation?

The Council believes that the treaty with Mauritius concerns the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) alone, while the EP believes that the treaty concerns also judicial cooperation and development. In this case, the choice of legal base has far greater consequences than usual. Either way, the treaty had to be agreed unanimously by the Council, since both parties agree that it concerns foreign policy at least in part. But if the Council is right, and the treaty only concerns foreign policy, then: the EP did not even have to be consulted; the treaty had to be negotiated by the EU foreign policy High Representative; and the CJEU has no jurisdiction (except the jurisdiction to rule on whether the Council used the right Treaty base, as in this case: see Article 275 TFEU).
If the EP is right, then: the EP had the power of consent over the treaty; the treaty had to be negotiated by the Commission; and the CJEU has its full usual jurisdiction.

The Advocate-General first of all examines the EP’s arguments based on the precise wording of Article 218 TFEU, which specifies that the EP must consent to or be consulted about all treaties to which the EU will become a party, unless those treaties ‘relate exclusively’ to the CFSP. In his view, this rule simply echoes the legal distinction between the ‘legal bases’ of the CFSP and other EU policies, and so does not create a separate rule relating to the conclusion of external treaties.

Then the Advocate-General turns to the heart of the issue: which legal base applies? In his view, taking account of the overall legal context, including Security Council Resolutions addressing the threat to international security posed by the pirates and the EU’s military action to combat them, the treaty is a CFSP measure.
In particular, the CFSP measure providing for the military action contains rules on the possible transfer of the pirates to third States, including human rights protection. That EU measure would not be effective without treaties with third States regulating the transfer of those pirates.

Also, the treaty falls within the scope of the CFSP due to its objectives, which include (from the EU’s general external relations objectives) the requirements that the EU act in order to: ‘safeguard its values, fundamental interests, security, independence and integrity’; ‘consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law’; ‘preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security’; and ‘promote an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good global governance’ (Article 21(2) TEU). In the Advocate-General’s view, these ‘are among those [objectives] that are traditionally assigned to the CFSP’ and ‘essentially correspond’ to the CFSP objectives as they were set out in the Treaties before the Treaty of Lisbon. The activity of transferring pirates also falls within the scope of the defence policy provisions of Articles 42 and 43 TEU, which refer to the use of ‘civilian and military’ assets.

The Advocate-General also rejected the use of the EU’s powers concerning criminal judicial cooperation.
In his view, the external use of the EU’s justice and home affairs powers must ‘have a close link with freedom, security and justice within the Union’, namely ‘a direct link between the aim of the internal security of the Union and the judicial and/or police cooperation which is developed outside the Union’.This was distinct from a CFSP measure which had the objective of, ‘first and foremost, peace, stability and democratic development in a region outside the Union’. In this case, transferring pirates to East African states was too far removed from the development of the EU’s justice and home affairs policies. Finally, the Advocate-General rejected the use of the EU’s development policy powers, since the assistance which the EU gives to Mauritius is linked only to the application of the rules on the transfer of pirates, which constitute (in his view) a CFSP measure.

Is this first part of the opinion convincing? Some parts are more convincing than others. Certainly, the treaty should not have a legal base relating to development policy, since the assistance being provided is purely ancillary to the transfer of pirates. But this begs the question of the legal base which should apply to the transfer of pirates.
It makes sense to apply the same legal base rules to the conclusion of international treaties as apply to the adoption of internal legislation, since the Treaty drafters have forged a strong link between those two facets of EU decision-making. On the other hand, while it is true to say that a treaty containing rules on the transfer of pirates is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the military operation which catches them, it does not necessarily follow that it has the same legal base.
For example, for the EU’s patent legislation to be effective, there need to be rules on patent translation and the creation of a patent court. But the patent translation rules were adopted pursuant to a different decision-making rule, and the patent court will be established pursuant to a treaty between Member States. The legal base of the treaty with Mauritius should depend only on the content of the specific rules in the treaty with Mauritius.

Here, the arguments are finely balanced. The Advocate-General makes a persuasive case that EU military operations can use civilian assets, and that the EU’s justice and home affairs powers can be used externally only where there is a sufficient link to the EU’s internal rules in this area. Incidentally, this line of argument strangles at birth the idea (floated, as it were, by Italy) that an EU foreign policy measure could establish a military action in the Mediterranean to control immigration towards the EU. The link between such an action and the EU’s immigration, asylum and border control powers is blindingly obvious.

On the other hand, with great respect, the Advocate-General’s analysis of the EU’s general external relations objectives is not fully convincing. Continue reading “Steven PEERS : Pirates of the Indian Ocean: Legal Base and Democratic Debate”

Data protection: the European Parliament still fighting on two fronts

by Luca Boniolo

Data protection remains a hot issue in parliamentary works…

On November 11th the European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) held its 9th hearing on Electronic Mass Surveillance of EU Citizens in the framework of its enquiry on the so-called “PRISM” case.[1] In a rather exceptional move even a Member of the US Congress was among the speakers; Microsoft, Google and Facebook representatives were also heard by the Brussels lawmakers during the same hearing.

Exceptional presence: US Congressman Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner

Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Chair of the US Congress Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, member of the Republican Party and co-author of the Patriot Act, stated: “I hope that we have learned our lesson and that oversight will be a lot more vigorous”, adding that abuses by the NSA could had been carried out outside congressional authority.

In a previous statement Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner said that the intelligence community could had also misused its powers by collecting telephone records also on Americans citizens, and claimed the time has come “to put their metadata program out of business”  (section 215 of the Patriot Act). Consistently with this position he worked on a bipartisan bill, the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-Collection and Online Monitoring Act” (named for its acronym: the “USA Freedom Act”), which should constrain NSA abuses. However this bipartisan initiative is still far from making unanimity; the democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair of Selected Committee on Intelligence in the US Senate, for instance, tabled a bill, the “FISA Improvements Act of 2013”, which is attracting plenty of critics because it is considered as a way to enshrine the current NSA data collection activities into law by granting formal Congressional approval to these widespread surveillance programs. “The Feinstein bill puts what the NSA has been doing into law and says it’s Ok… To me, that’s scary”, stated Sensenbrenner and added: “They’ve [senators] become cheerleaders for whatever the intelligence agencies want”.

Facebook, Google and Microsoft declared their innocence

Then executives from three of the world’s biggest IT firms – Facebook, Google and Microsoft – took centre stage at the hearing. The three companies, as well as Apple, AOL, PalTalk and Yahoo, have been accused by the press, on the basis of files leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden,[2] to give direct access to personal data and/or to routinely hand over these data to the US’ National Security Agency (NSA). Even if this happens in compliance with US subpoenas ordered by the so-called Fisa (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court, it has to be noted that the works and jurisprudence of this Court are not public and doubts can be raised on the efficiency of its oversight if, according to official figures, FISA Court approved 99.95% of warrants filed by security services between 2001 and 2012. Moreover, from other Snowden’s files it appears that NSA and GCHQ,[3] might have hacked Google servers and tapped undersea cables, (which carry 90% of internet and phone data between America and Europe).

Facebook Director Richard Allan and Microsoft VicePresident Ms Dorothee Belz, both in charge of of Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Google Director Nicklas Lundblad, in charge of Public Policy and Government Relations, all denied in strong terms giving US intelligence services “unfettered” access to people’s private data. According to them only specific information on individual suspects have been subpoenaed by US intelligence and police services. Mr Allan noted that in the six months ending 31 December 2012, US agencies made between 11,000 and 12,000 queries, while EU countries made another 10.000, but they affected only “a tiny fraction of 1% of all Facebook accounts”. The three representatives also denied having any knowledge of the PRISM programme: “We do not know PRISM, we do not take part in it, and we do not give the government access to our data”, reiterated Ms Belz. Nevertheless all the three declared that they would reveal more on the content and scope of US intelligence requests, but the FISA Court banned them from diffusing this kind of information. The speakers also appeared worried about the new European draft Regulation on Data Protection (Rapporteur Mr Jan ALBRECHT, DE, Greens) notably   on the limits surrounding international transfers of personal data, which could lead to real conflict of law and to legal insecurity that “we will not be able to resolve”.

The EP is pushing for the suspension of the transatlantic “SWIFT” agreement…

The LIBE Committee Inquiry has in the meantime on Electronic Mass Surveillance is a response to the US National Security Agency’s alleged tapping of EU citizens’ bank data as shared in the framework of the EU-USA transatlantic agreement on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP).[4] On the basis of the elements already emerged during the Committee inquiry, the European Parliament plenary has already voted on October 23rd a request of suspension of that agreement.[5]

To grant the protection of EU citizens’ privacy, MEPs believe that it has to be clarified whether NSA has had direct access to financial messaging data managed by Swift beyond the allowed cases, in other words if there has been a violation of the agreement. The non-binding resolution, tabled by the S&D, ALDE and Greens/EFA groups, was approved by 280 votes to 254, with 30 abstentions, only a slightly majority. These groups believe that is impossible to maintain the agreement as it stands, while EPP group proposed a resolution demanding clarifications too, but without mentioning the suspension of the agreement.

The European Parliament does not legally have the power to suspend an international agreement such as SWIFT and this action remains simple symbolic, committing the Council and Commission to nothing. However paragraph 11 of the Resolution states: «Considers that, although Parliament has no formal powers under Article 218 TFEU to initiate the suspension or termination of an international agreement, the Commission will have to act if Parliament withdraws its support for a particular agreement; points out that, when considering whether or not to give its consent to future international agreements [such as the much bigger EU-US free trade agreement currently under negotiations], Parliament will take account of the responses of the Commission and the Council in relation to this Agreement», followed by article 12: «Asks the Commission, in the light of the above, to suspend the Agreement». Moreover EU Parliament asks the Council and the Member States to authorise an investigation by the Europol Cybercrime Centre into the allegations of unauthorised access to financial payment data governed by the Agreement.

…however the Commission is reluctant…

European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malström stated already during a plenary in Strasbourg at the beginning of October, that in the framework of previous consultations the US side has provided detailed explanations and assurances: the agreement had not been violated. On Thursday 23 October the answer of the Commission was the same, i.e. negative; in a press release Commissioner Malström stated: “We will follow up our request for written assurance with the US without delay and keep the European Parliament fully informed. In the meantime, the provisions of the TFTP Agreement that clearly regulate the transfer of personal data, and that provide effective safeguards to protect the fundamental rights of Europeans, will remain in place”. The Commission appeared to be satisfied with the US assurances, deciding, for the time being, not to take in account the EP request. Considering that EP’s approval was necessary for the entry into force of the TFTP agreement, and that the Agreement do not require even a specific wrongdoing justifyng the suspension,  this position of the Brussels executive looks quite inappropriate.

In the meantime the EU Data Protection general reform.. Continue reading “Data protection: the European Parliament still fighting on two fronts”

Analysis: EU rules on maritime rescue: Member States quibble while migrants drown…

by Steve Peers Professor of Law, University of Essex

PUBLISHED ON STATEWATCH

22 October 2013

Introduction

For many years now, the death toll of migrants who drown while attempting to reach the European Union in search of a better life has tragically been rising. Most recently, public opinion was particularly shocked when hundreds of migrants drowned when a single vessel sank off the coast of Italy. The Italian government has called for the EU to adopt an action plan to deal with the issue, and the Prime Minister of Malta, calling the Mediterranean a ‘graveyard’, has called on the EU to act.

Yet shockingly, these Member States, along with four others, are blocking an EU proposal on the table that contains concrete rules on the search and rescue of migrants – precisely and solely because it contains rules on search and rescue (along with disembarkation) of migrants. In fact, they describe their opposition to such rules as a ‘red line’, ie they refuse to negotiate on their opposition to any detailed EU rules which concern saving migrants’ lives.

The following analysis examines the background to this issue and assesses these Member States’ objections. It concludes that their legal objections to this proposal are clearly groundless. Furthermore, of course, from a political point of view, the hypocrisy and inhumanity of these Member States’ position speaks for itself.

Background

Due to widespread concerns about the accountability and legality of the actions of the EU’s border agency, known as ‘Frontex’, when it coordinates Member States’ maritime surveillance operations, EU rules on this issue were first adopted in 2010.

These rules initially took the form of a Council Decision implementing the EU legislation on the control of external borders, which is known as the ‘Schengen Borders Code’. The 2010 Council Decision included binding rules on interception at sea, and apparently non-binding rules on search and rescue and disembarkation of migrants.

A majority of those members of the European Parliament (EP) who voted on this Council Decision opposed it, and so the EP decided to sue the Council before the Court of Justice to annul the decision. The EP won its case, when the Court ruled in September 2012 that the Council Decision had to be annulled.

According to the Court, this Decision should have been adopted as a legislative act, because it addressed issues that affected the human rights of the persons concerned, and regulated the coercive powers of border guards; the Court also clarified that the rules in the Decision on search and rescue and disembarkation were in fact binding. However, the Court maintained the 2010 Decision in force until its replacement by a legislative act.

In spring 2013, the Commission proposed such a replacement act, which has to be adopted by means of the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, ie a qualified majority vote in the Council (Member States’ ministers) and joint decision-making powers of the European Parliament. This proposal took over much of the text of the Council decision, but also added some further details as regards search and rescue and disembarkation, confirming also that these rules were binding. Like the 2010 Council decision, the proposal is limited to cases where Frontex coordinates Member States’ maritime surveillance.

While the European Parliament is broadly supportive of this proposal, suggesting only modest amendments, a group of Mediterranean Member States opposes the idea of any EU measure containing any detailed binding rules on search and rescue and disembarkation – even though such provisions are the most important rules in the 2013 proposal as regards saving migrants’ lives and their subsequent welfare.

The proposed search and rescue and disembarkation rules

The relevant parts of the 2013 proposal are Article 9 (search and rescue) and Article 10 (disembarkation).
Article 9 contains first of all a general obligation to ‘render assistance to any ship or person under distress at sea’. It defines further what is meant by a condition of ‘uncertainty’, ‘alert’ or ‘distress’, and provides for general rules on coordination of operations in such cases.

As for disembarkation, Article 10 contains rules to determine where migrants should be disembarked if they are intercepted or rescued. If they are intercepted in the territorial water or nearby maritime zone of a Member State participating in Frontex operations, they must be disembarked in the territory of that State.

If they are intercepted in the high seas (ie waters which no State has a legal claim to, under the international law of the sea), then they should be disembarked in the State which they departed from – subject to the rules in Article 4 of the proposal, on the protection of fundamental rights. In the case of search and rescue operations, there are no specific rules on which State to disembark migrants in, but Article 4 implicitly applies here as well.

The rules in Article 4 prohibit sending a person to a State ‘where there is a serious risk that such person would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or from which there is a serious risk of expulsion, removal or extradition to another country in contravention of the principle of nonrefoulement’.

This clause reflects the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, in a case called Hirsi v. Italy, where Italy was condemned for ‘pushing back’ boats full of migrants to Colonel Khadafy’s Libya.

Member States’ objections

The group of Member States objecting to Articles 9 and 10 state that the EU has no competence over issues relating to search and rescue or disembarkation.

First of all, as regards disembarkation, this objection is clearly ridiculous.
The admission of a migrant onto a Member State’s territory, or removal to a third State’s territory, is obviously an inherent part and parcel of immigration policy, and the Treaties empower the EU to develop a ‘common immigration policy’. Equally, the Treaties give the power for the EU to adopt rules on border controls, and it would be absurd to adopt rules governing the interception of migrants without addressing the obvious corollary question of what to do with the migrants once the border guards catch them.

Secondly, at first sight, the objections to EU competence as regards search and rescue rules have more force. Certainly, there is nothing in the EU Treaties which gives the EU power to regulate searches and rescues generally. But the 2013 proposal would not do that: it would only regulate searches and rescues in the context of the EU’s border controls policy, and only where maritime surveillance was coordinated by Frontex.

Can the EU regulate searches and rescues in such cases?
The case law of the Court of Justice on public health issues should logically apply by analogy.
The Court has ruled that while the EU cannot regulate public health generally, it can take account of public health concerns when it adopts legislation (for instance, on tobacco advertising, cigarette content or the packaging of cigarettes) which is principally concerned with regulating the EU’s internal market. Similarly, the EU’s General Court has ruled that EU legislation can take account of the life and welfare of seals, if it adopts legislation on the sale of seal products that mainly concerns the internal market.

If EU internal market law can concern itself with the long-term effects of cigarette smoking for smokers, or the immediate effect of clubbing on seals, then surely EU law on border controls can concern itself with the effect of imminent drowning upon migrants, where there is a direct connection with maritime surveillance.
And there is bound to be such a connection: EU rules stepping up maritime surveillance, while they have (and legally must have) the principal purpose of controlling entry onto the territory of the Member States, will in some cases fall to be applied when the persons planning such entry are about to drown. It should be recalled, as explained above, that the proposal only sets out a general obligation to assist vessels in distress and to coordinate action in emergency situations.

Thirdly, it should not be forgotten that the proposed rules will apply only to operations coordinated by Frontex – an EU agency, funded entirely by money from the EU budget.

Why should the EU not have the power to set conditions before its agency (spending its money) assists Member States with maritime surveillance, in the same way that it has the power to set conditions on its financial assistance to its Member States, or third countries?

Another objection of the six Member States is the compatibility of the proposed Regulation with international law. The obvious way to address this problem (if it exists) is to amend the Regulation to ensure that it is consistent with international law. Anyway, the preamble to the legislation (recital 4) states that it must be applied consistently with international law: Member States did not object to such vague references to international law in readmission treaties, or in much of the EU’s legislation on irregular migration orborder controls.

The six objecting Member States seem to be concerned also about the proposal’s mere overlap (as distinct from conflict) with international law – but the EU adopts an enormous amount of legislation (on the environment, for instance) which overlaps with international law, and aims to provide for the detailed and effective implementation of the relevant international law obligations.

More fundamentally, eviscerating the proposed rules on disembarkation would empty the protection of Article 4 of the proposal (on ensuring the safety of persons sent to third countries) of much of its practical content – but, as explained above, this part of the proposal reflects important case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Similarly, removing or weakening the provisions on search and rescue would subtract from the proposal any added value as regards protection of the right to life – another key obligation of human rights law. One can only conclude that the six Member States in question come not to praise international law, but to bury it.

Conclusion

Member States rightly rejected specious and cynical legal arguments made throughout the last decade to justify torture, abduction and indefinite detention without trial in the name of the ‘war on terror’.
Of course, control of immigration is a different issue, but the legal arguments raised by these six Member States are equally specious and cynical – and should equally be rejected. The EU bears its share of responsibility (alongside its Member States) for the deaths of hundreds of migrants – but that must also mean that the Union should be able to make some concrete contribution towards reducing this death toll in future.

Sources

2010 Council Decision
Judgment of Court of Justice – Case C-355/10:
2013 Commission proposal –
European Parliament draft report–
Objections of six Member States –
Presidency proposal –
Positions of Member States on entire proposal

Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement.© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/”fair dealing” is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.

After “Prism” (and US Patriot Act section 215): EDRI and FREE submission to US and EU Institutions.

Submission

by

the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi) &

Fundamental Rights European Experts Group

(FREE Group)

to

the United States Congress,

the European Parliament and  Commission

& the Council of the European Union,

& the Secretary-General & the Parliamentary Assembly

of the Council of Europe

on

the surveillance activities of the United States and certain European States’ national security and “intelligence” agencies


August 2013

Note on the choice of addressees:

EDRi and FREE are submitting this appeal to the addressees mentioned on the cover page for the following reasons:

–                      The US Congress is ultimately responsible for providing democratic oversight over the activities of the US Executive.  It has established a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) consultation on FISA and the PATRIOT Act.  However, while we are sending a copy of this submission to that consultation, this document is addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate because we argue that the issues raised can only be addressed properly by the establishment of a special investigation committee of Congress, with appropriate support and powers.  We also wish to stress that, whatever the defects in the scope of protection afforded to non-US citizens under the US Constitution, the USA, as parties to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention, are bound under international law to extend privacy protection to non-US citizens and to observe the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality also in their surveillance activities.

–                      The European Parliament is responsible for providing democratic oversight over the activities of the European Union, and has taken a keen interest in the issues raised, as has the European Commission, which forms the executive branch of the EU.  However, the European Council (representing the governments of the EU Member States) has been less demanding.  We are calling for all of them to seek to establish the full truth about the relevant laws and practices, in both Europe and the USA.  We are aware of the “national security” exemptions in the main EU treaties, but these are not and should not be absolute, or seen as granting Member States total exemption from scrutiny in this regard.  The EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, which has fundamental status in the EU (even in relation to UN Security Council decisions) and explicitly demands full protection of personal data, cannot be simply ignored in this context.  Ultimately, it is for the European Court of Justice to determine the scope of the exemption, but we already note that the US’ NSA’s activities are manifestly not limited to national security as defined in international law.  We are therefore urging the EU bodies to address the issues to the fullest extent possible within their legal competences.

–                      The Council of Europe (CoE), as the oldest, broadest European institution, has the main responsibility for upholding human rights and the rule of law throughout the territory of its 47 Member States.  Its mandate, in particular in relation to human rights and the upholding of the European Convention on Human Rights, does not exclude matters relating to national security.  On the contrary, the standards that we cite in our submission have been mainly developed by the European Court of Human Rights in its case-law under the Convention.  All European States are legally obliged to “secure” full protection of these rights and freedoms.  Within the Council of Europe, responsibility for the upholding of these standards is shared between the Secretary-General and the Committee of Ministers (representing the CoE Member States), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), and the Court.

Effective action on the issues addressed in this submission will require the involvement of all of the above.  For that reason, we address this submission to all of them.

I.                   General:

1.                  The activities of national security agencies in Europe and the USA, and the arrangements under which they cooperate, have been outside the scope of effective democratic oversight and outside clear legal frameworks for too long; they must be brought under the Rule of Law.

2.                  For Europe, that means those activities must be made to comply, in law and in practice, with the relevant minimum European human rights standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) summarised below, at II, and in Attachment 1.  At present, it appears that several European States are not complying with these standards.

3.                  These European constitutional standards are in line with the global (UN) standards enunciated by the Human Rights Committee acting under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and others, briefly noted in Attachment 2.  All European States and the USA are parties to the ICCPR in particular.

4.                  For the USA, this means that it, too, should bring its activities in line with these standards.  As a first step, US surveillance law and practice (in relation to surveillance of both US citizens and non-US/European citizens) must be made totally clear, and any divergence from those standards must be made public.  Only that will allow for sensible discussions on how to bring those activities into line with international standards.  Current US law as far as currently known is summarised below, at IV, and in Attachment 3.

II.                European requirements:                         

(For more detail, see Attachment 1)

5.                  If an agency of any European State is given powers under the laws of that State to gather information on (the communications- or other data of) anyone, be that within Europe or not, then that activity must be regarded as being done “within the jurisdiction” of the State concerned.[1]  This means that, in relation to any surveillance activity by any European State, on anyone, wherever they are, the State in question must comply with the minimum European standards, set out in Attachment 1, which are directly derived from the ECHR case-law.

6.                  Moreover, from a European perspective, any spying on Europeans and non-Europeans living in Europe, by any non-European State, anywhere in the world, should meet the same minimum European-constitutional and the similar UN standards, set out in Attachment 2.

7.                  Non-European national security agencies should not seek or gain direct access to any personal data held in Europe (e.g., by asking US companies to “pull” data from their Europe-based servers, or to allow US agencies to query the data in Europe, and hand over the results):  that infringes the sovereignty of the relevant European States (PCIJ, Lotus judgment, pp. 18-19).[2]  Instead, they should seek such access through bi- or multilateral assistance treaties, under arrangements similar to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) for law enforcement agencies;  and those treaties should in substance and process conform to the minimum European-constitutional and international standards.

8.                  Failure of a European State to prevent improper spying by non-European countries constitutes a breach of that country’s “positive obligations” under the ECHR.  Active support for, complicity in, or even passive condoning of such spying would breach the State’s primary obligations under the ECHR.

9.                  In addition, European States and the European Union should ensure that personal data on Europeans and non-Europeans living in Europe, if held on US-based “cloud” servers, will be accessible to the US national security agencies only on the basis of clear and published provisions of treaty arrangements that also meet those European-constitutional and international standards.

III.              USA requirements:                                               

(For more detail, see Attachment 3)

10.              The First and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution in principle guarantee the right to free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches to US citizens.  However, even domestically, this protection is weakened by the “third party” doctrine on personal data and the relaxed “pen/trap” rules on searches.  Secret rulings of the FISA Court reportedly further erode these rights, arguably in unconstitutional ways.  Those rulings are being challenged in the US courts.  Here, we may note that current US law and practice, even with regard to spying on US citizens, falls short of European and international standards.

11.              Moreover, it has become clear that non-US citizens outside the USA do not enjoy even the limited protections of the First and Fourth Amendments:  they can be spied upon arbitrarily by US agencies, without any meaningful substantive or procedural limitations, in clear breach of international standards on privacy generally, and on privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet in particular.  Under international human rights law, those guarantees should be afforded to “everyone” affected by the measures.

IV.             How to address the issues:  our demands

12.              The ultimate aim should be for both the US and the European legal systems to offer high-level privacy/data protection to “everyone”, in line with the established European minimum standards (set out in Attachment 1), that are also in line with UN standards (set out in Attachment 2); and for those standards to be adhered to in practice by the USA, all European States, and the EU, whether acting independently or jointly.

To this end, we demand urgent action from both the US and the European institutions.

Demands for review and redress from the USA:

i.                    Clarity about the law, and honesty about practice:

13.              We demand complete transparency in relation to the scope and detail of US spying activities, and of the bi- and multilateral arrangements between the USA and other States and international organisations, in particular “5EYES”[3], Atlantic and/or European ones, relating to this activity, under which data on the communications and Internet activities of European citizens are intercepted, held, recorded and/or monitored and analysed.

14.              We demand complete clarity about the limitations of the US legal system, and in particular as concerns the apparent fact that it provides insufficient protection to US citizens, and effectively none to non-US citizens.  Following such a full clarification, urgent measures should be taken to bring the US surveillance system fully into line with international human rights- and privacy/data protection standards.

ii.                  The way to achieve this:                    

15.              While we appreciate the establishment of the PCLOB consultation, we do not believe that this is the appropriate forum or process to achieve the required full transparency, or that it will lead to US law and practice being brought fully into line with the requirements of international law.

16.              To be more specific:  we are joining US civil liberty organisations in calling on the US Congress to establish a properly staffed special investigatory committee, on the lines of the 1970s CHURCH Commission, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documents; and to make arrangements to ensure that European institutions, States and NGOs can fully participate in the investigation carried out by this special committee, and indeed in the drawing up of the mandate for this committee.

iii.                The changes to be made

17.              Senior European politicians have called for the extension of US legal protections afforded under US constitutional and federal law to (communications) data on US citizens, to (communications) data on European citizens held in the USA or accessed from the USA by US agencies, just as data on US citizens, held in Europe, is already protected under European human rights- and data protection law.

18.              Reciprocity is indeed an important element in international relations.  However, in the present context, this fails to recognise that while, in respect of their data, Europeans currently enjoy hardly any protection under US laws, the protection accorded to US citizens under those laws is also deficient, and falls below European and wider international minimum requirements.  Raising the level of US legal protection for data on Europeans to the level of protection of data on US citizens therefore still leaves European citizens and US citizens subject to a regime that falls short of international standards.  That is not enough.

19.              We are joining civil liberty organisations in the USA in calling for fundamental changes in US law, to ensure proper protection under the law against non-transparent and undemocratic surveillance.  New laws must be introduced at federal level to provide much stricter rules, open judicial warrants and rulings, and full democratic control, in accordance with international human rights and privacy/data protection standards.  Specifically, we demand that when such laws are in place, they should afford equal protection to US and non-US citizens.

20.              Until this is achieved, the USA cannot be said to offer “adequate” protection to data, in relation to any of the areas for which the European Commission has (wrongly) held it to offer such protection:  the “Safe Harbor”, the disclosure of PNR data, and the making available of SWIFT data (see below, para. 29).

Demands for review and redress from Europe:

i.                    Clarity about the law, and honesty about practice:

21.              European States are not blameless when it comes to surveillance:  in spite of a much stronger legal regime on paper (under the ECHR), it appears that practice in some (perhaps many) European States also fall seriously short of the European-legal (ECHR) requirements.  Several States, in particular the UK, also seem to have worked closely with the USA (in particular, in ECHELON) in establishing a global surveillance network that appears to blatantly violate European and international law.  We need complete clarity about the laws in the EU- and Council of Europe Member States, and complete clarity about the treaties entered into by European States, and full, honest disclosure about the practices of the national security agencies and –bodies of the EU- and Council of Europe Member States too.

ii.                

The way to obtain this:                        EU:

22.              The European Parliament has a crucial role to play.  We welcome the European Parliament’s decision to establish a committee of enquiry within the Civil Liberties Committee, and urge it to be broad, to encompass all the threats posed to the rights of European citizens by foreign and EU Member States’ surveillance activities.

23.              We also – but very cautiously and with serious reservations – note the establishment of an EU-US “expert group” to look at these matters.  However, we oppose the excessively limited mandate of this group, and demand full transparency about its composition and activities.  We demand civil society involvement and complete openness for the work of this group.  Without that, its findings and the arrangements it might propose are likely to be incomplete, will lack credibility and, consequently, will be unacceptable.

24.             

Although this should be obvious, for the avoidance of any doubt, the EU should make clear, as a matter of urgency, that any disclosure of data on European citizens that is subject to European data protection law (such as financial or airline data, or Europol/Eurojust/etc. data) to, or any access to such data by, national Member States’ national security agencies (NSAs), and a fortiori by third country agencies, is subject to the European data protection rules governing the processing of such data.

Council of Europe

25.              We note the fact that the Council of Europe, which Europe’s main human rights guarantor, is not excluded from addressing matters relating to national security that may affect the human rights of European citizens and indeed of “everyone” affected by measures of CoE Member States.  On the contrary, the European standards set out in Attachment 1 have been developed by the European Court of Human Rights in what is now established case-law, applicable to all Council of Europe Member States (which includes all EU Member States), and indeed to the EU itself (albeit, for now, still indirectly, through “general principles of Union law” and the EU Charter).

26.              Specifically, we call on the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe to exercise his power under Article 52 ECHR to demand of all CoE Member States full disclosure of “the manner in which [their] internal law[s] ensure[s] the effective implementation of” Article 8 of the ECHR in relation to surveillance of electronic communications- and Internet data by their national security agencies; and on the CoE Commissioner of Human Rights, PACE, and NGOs to be fully involved in this enquiry.

iii.                The changes to be made

27.              Until the full truth has been established, and full, appropriate remedial action has been taken to bring the activities of all relevant US agencies in line with international standards, there can be no close cooperation between US and European agencies, or between US and European State’s agencies on the previous, essentially unregulated basis.

28.              Immediate changes:  Given that, as noted above, in para. 20, in the light of the recent revelations, the USA cannot be said to offer “adequate” protection to data in relation to the “Safe Harbor”, the disclosure of PNR data, and the passing on of SWIFT data, the current arrangements are in clear and blatant breach of the primary law of the European Union and, consequently, the EU is legally obliged to immediately suspend all US-related European data protection “adequacy” decisions.

29.              Changes to the General Data Protection Regulation:  Pending adoption of adequate legislation in the USA, European data protection law should ensure that European citizens are clearly warned that, if they provide data to US companies, or to global Internet companies that have links to the USA, use servers in the USA, or are otherwise subject to US FISA and other surveillance orders, their data will not be safe from arbitrary, intrusive surveillance by US agencies.  This is already proposed by senior EU officials and legislators in relation to the General Data Protection Regulation currently in the process of being adopted.  We endorse that proposal.

30.              New treaty arrangements on cooperation between national security agencies:  The post-WWII treaties and arrangements on “national security” and “intelligence” cooperation (including the definitions of these matters) are totally outdated.  We need a complete overhaul of the national and inter-State arrangements on “national security” and “intelligence” cooperation.  The old treaties  – UKUSA, 5EYES, NATO and others –  should be openly discussed and reviewed, and fundamentally changed to bring them into line with the international standards we have adduced.  Without that, we do not live in the free and democratic societies we are made to believe we live in.

– o – O – o –


EDRi and FREE are grateful to Professor Douwe Korff of London Metropolitan University for drafting this paper.

Clipboard01.png

Rue Belliard 20, B-1040 Brussels,

Tel:+32 2 274 25 70

E-Mail: brussels@edri.org, http://www.edri.org

 

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

 

European Digital Rights is an association of 35 digital civil rights organisations from 21 European countries. We work together to defend civil rights in the information society.

 

 

 

 

11 Rue Darwin
1190 Bruxelles

E-Mail: edecapitani@gmail.com
http://www.eafsj.org

The Fundamental Rights European Experts Group (FREE Group)

 

 The Fundamental Rights European Expert Group is an NGO whose focus is on monitoring, teaching and advocating in the European Union freedom security and justice related policies.

 

Attachment 1:

SUMMARY OF EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY SURVEILLANCE:

The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) shows the following considerations and requirements of European human rights law relating to surveillance:[4]

–                 A system of secret surveillance for the protection of national security may undermine or even destroy democracy under the cloak of defending it.

–                 The mere existence of legislation which allows a system for the secret monitoring of communications entails a threat of surveillance for all those to whom the legislation may be applied.

–                 In view of these risks, there must be adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.

–                 The first of these guarantees is that such systems must be set out in statute law, rather than in subsidiary rules, orders or manuals.  The rules must moreover be in a form which is open to public scrutiny and knowledge.  Secret, unpublished rules in this context are fundamentally contrary to the Rule of Law; surveillance on such a basis would ipso facto violate the Convention.

The following are the “minimum safeguards” that should be enshrined in such (published) statute law, and adhered to in practice:

·                the offences and activities in relation to which surveillance may be ordered should be spelled out in a clear and precise manner;

·                the law should clearly indicate which categories of people may be subjected to surveillance;

·                there must be strict limits on the duration of any ordered surveillance;

·                there must be strict procedures to be followed for ordering the examination, use and storage of the data obtained through surveillance;

·                there must be strong safeguards against abuse of surveillance powers, including strict purpose/use-limitations (e.g., preventing the too-easy disclosure of intelligence data for criminal law purposes) and strict limitations and rules on when data can be disclosed by NSAs to LEAs, etc.;

·                there must be strict rules on the destruction/erasure of surveillance data to prevent surveillance from remaining hidden after the fact;

·                persons who have been subjected to surveillance should be informed of this as soon as this is possible without endangering national security or criminal investigations, so that they can exercise their right to an effective remedy at least ex post facto; and

·                the bodies charged with supervising the use of surveillance powers should be independent and responsible to, and be appointed by, Parliament rather than the Executive.

Under the ECHR, these principles must be applied to anyone who is affected by surveillance measures taken by any Council of Europe Member State under domestic law.

In addition, European States have a “positive obligation” to protect their citizens from surveillance contrary to the above, perpetrated by any other State.  A fortiori, they are under a legal obligation not to actively support, participate or collude in such surveillance by a non-European State.

– o – O – o –

Attachment 2:

BRIEF NOTE ON WIDER UNITED NATIONS/INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY SURVEILLANCE:

Attachment 1 above summarises the European Court of Human Rights’ standards set for “national security” surveillance.  Here, we briefly note that the same standards are also reflected in law and guidance issued at the global level by the United Nations, and by other international organisations, albeit not always in the same detail.

The primary instrument in this respect is the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR or “the Covenant”), the most important binding global human rights treaty, to which all European States and the USA (indeed, almost all UN Member States) are parties.  It is applied and interpreted by the Human Rights Committee, which has issued important relevant guidance.

Further important guidance has been provided in the 1996 Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (drafted by Article 19 and other NGOs but endorsed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression) and more recently in statements and reports by that Special Rapporteur and special rapporteurs from other international organisations.  Also relevant is the guidance issued by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (the OSCE), to which again all European countries and the USA (and Canada) are parties.

Here, it may suffice to note that all of these stress the same core principles as are stressed by the European Court of Human Rights:

–                  –    “national security” must be defined narrowly (see the “Tenth Anniversary Joint Declaration” by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, together with the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information; also the Johannesburg Principles, Principle 2(a) as well as Principle 1.2);

–                   –   any interference with the freedom to seek, receive and impart information by any medium (including the Internet), including e-communications- and Internet surveillance, must be based on “law”, i.e., on clear and specific, published legal rules (and published legal interpretations of the rules):  an interference with privacy and communications can be “arbitrary” – and thus in breach of international human rights law, including the ICCPR –  even if it is in accordance with domestic law;

–                    –  the law must limit any such the interference to what is “necessary” and “reasonable” or “proportionate”; and

–                     – the law must provide for an “accessible and effective remedy” against the interference.

On all of the above, see General Comment 16 on Article 17 ICCPR, paras. 3 and 4; General Comment 31 on General Legal Obligations Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, para. 15ff.;  and the reports by the Special Rapporteur passim).

–                    –  the requirements of “law”, “necessity” and “proportionality” also apply in relation to measures taken to protect national security (Johannesburg Principles, Principles 1.1.(a) & (b), 2(a) & (b)).

Moreover, in assessing the questions of “necessity” and “proportionality” in particular, the Human Rights Committee and the UN Special Rapporteurs will take into account exactly the same kinds of factors as are listed in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Two related matters deserve special mention in the present context:  the application of international human rights law to the extraterritorial accessing (or “pulling”) of data from servers in another country;  and the duty to extend the rights enshrined in the ICCPR to all individuals without distinction as to nationality or other status.  Specifically:

–                 Article 2(1) of the ICCPR requires all States Parties “to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

–                 In the view of the Human Rights Committee:

This means that a State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party. … [T]he enjoyment of Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States Parties but must also be available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons, who may find themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State Party. (General Comment 31, emphasis added)

–                 Although the Committee has not yet issued any further views or general comments on the matter, it must be assumed that if a State gives itself legal powers to access (or “pull”) data on individuals, when those data are situated outside its physical territory, that State is “exercising jurisdiction” (to be specific: “enforcement jurisdiction”) extra-territorially, in the State where those data are located.  As noted in the body of this paper with reference to the Lotus case, if this happens without the consent of the other State, it violates the sovereignty of that other State.  Here, it should be noticed that that aside, such extra-territorial action by the first State would also mean that that State is asserting “jurisdiction” over those data.  In respect of their data, the individuals concerned are made to be “subject to [the State’s] jurisdiction”.

–                 In any such extra-territorial cross-border accessing (or “pulling”) of data, the State in question must therefore comply with all the general requirements of the Covenant (clear, foreseeable “law”; “legitimate aim”, “necessity” and “proportionality”), and with the requirement of Article 2(1), that it affords the protection of Article 17 to the persons affected irrespective of their nationality or other status.

In sum:  The UN standards are fully concordant with the European ones set out in Attachment 1.

– o – O – o –

Attachment 3:

SUMMARY OF UNITED STATES STANDARDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY SURVEILLANCE:

In the USA, communications data and personal information on US citizens (and on some minor categories of non-US citizens living in the USA) are in principle granted protection under the First and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution, providing protection of free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches.

However:

1.                  There is no general, cohesive, broadly-applicable federal privacy law.  Rather, there is only a largely incoherent and sectorally-based patchwork for federal and state laws, which provide serious privacy protection only in certain areas and respects. See: Chris Hoofnagle, Country Study on the USA, prepared for a wider EU study on New Challenges to Data Protection, at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/studies/new_privacy_challenges/final_report_country_report_B1_usa.pdf

2.                  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) allows for the monitoring of communications “meta” data (data on the devices involved in the communications, time, duration, location, etc., but not the contents of communications) on the basis of a “pen register or trap and trace device” warrant, that will be issued on the basis of simple certification by a government attorney that such information is “relevant” to an “ongoing criminal investigation”; there is no need to show “probable cause”, and there is no meaningful judicial oversight. This is because in Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that use of a pen register does not constitute a search, and is thus not protected under the Fourth Amendment.  The surveillance carried out under ECPA, even on US citizens, is extensive and includes massive amounts of e-communications data.  For further details, see: Douwe Korff, Presentation on behalf of EDRi at the EU – USA Privacy Conference, Washington DC, 19 March 2012, available at:

http://edri.org/files/korff120319.pdf

3.                  The PATRIOT Act and FISA Acts allow even more extensive surveillance over US citizens.  Even on their face, the rules in these Acts fall far short of international-legal requirements.  However, the rules have been even further weakened, to the extent that they now reportedly provide hardly any constraint at all, even in respect of US citizens, in relation to national security and “foreign intelligence” matters, by means of secret rulings by the secretive FISA Court.  See: New York Times, 6 July 2013, In secret, court vastly broadens powers of NSA, at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130707&_r=1&

4.                  The constitutionality of these secret FISA Court rulings is doubtful, and they are being challenged in the US courts.  See: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretapping and http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa.  5.

                  In any case, and most worrying to Europeans, the First Amendment does not protect the relevant rights of non-US citizens not in the USA (so-called “excludable aliens”):  “[T]he interests in free speech and freedom of association of foreign nationals acting outside the borders, jurisdiction, and control of the United States do not fall within the interests protected by the First Amendment.”

(DKT Memorial Fund Ltd. v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 1989, quoted in Chevron Corporation v. Steven Donziger et al., U.S. District Judge Kaplan order of June 25, 2013).

6.                  Non-US citizens not resident in the USA similarly do not benefit from the protection of the Fourth Amendment, which does no apply if the person affected by a “search” does not have a “significant voluntary connection with the United States (US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1979).  Like the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment only protect “the people”, i.e., US citizens and some eligible (US-resident) aliens.

7.                  Finally, the FISAA §1881a allows US agencies, including in particular the NSA, to capture and trawl through any data, including e-communications and Internet data, of or on any non-US citizen with essentially no constraints.  All that is required is that the capturing and trawling does not inadvertently relate for more than 50% to US citizens, and that the data that are being looked for are “of interest” to “foreign affairs matters” of the USA:  the exercise of these essentially arbitrary powers is not limited to serious offences or terrorism, or to threats to US (or US allies’) national security.  See the report by Caspar Bowden et al. to the European Parliament, Fighting Cybercrime and Protection Privacy in the Cloud, 2012, and the subsequent article by him and Judith Rauhofer, Protecting their own:  Fundamental rights implications for EU data sovereignty in the cloud, 2013, available at, respectively:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=79050

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2283175

In sum:  The US Constitutional Amendments’ protections (as applied) and US Federal and State laws fall short of international standards.  Under ECPA and the PATRIOT and FISA Acts, as further weakened by the secret rulings of the FISA Court, even US citizens enjoy little protection against widespread and intrusive surveillance by US national security agencies in relation to over-broadly-defined “intelligence” matters, in particular in relation to “meta” communications data and Internet data.  In relation to US citizens, this may be unconstitutional.  But non-US citizens outside the USA enjoy not even the (already too low) protection accorded to US citizens:  they can effectively be spied upon arbitrarily, without any meaningful substantive or procedural limitations.  Moreover, the US surveillance activities under FISAA in particular do not appear to be limited to matters of “national security”, properly (restrictively) defined, for neither US citizens or non-US citizens.

– o – O – o –

[1]               Note that this is the case, even if the exercise of that jurisdiction would violate the sovereignty of another State, e.g., because it concerned data in another country (cf. the Lotus case, referred to in para. 7):  the fact that the act was contrary to international law of course does not mean that the State perpetrating the act is not bound by its human rights obligations; that would be perverse.  The point we make here is that in the circumstances described, the State is bound to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, because the acts concerned are “within its jurisdiction”.  While generally territorial in nature, this concept also covers acts carried out by State bodies within their home country (or territories of the State overseas) under domestic legislation that affects individuals in other countries.

[2]               This is also the view of the vice-president of the European Commission, Viviane Reding, who issued a statement on 25 July 2013, saying:  “The [EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation] will also provide legal clarity on data transfers outside the EU: when third country authorities want to access the data of EU citizens outside their territory, they have to use a legal framework that involves judicial control. Asking the companies directly is illegal. This is public international law.” See: http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/25/ireland-prism/ (emphasis added)

[3] The alliance of intelligence operations between the USA, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

[4]               See the cases of Klass v. Germany (Judgment of 6 September 1978), Weber and Saravia v. Germany (Admissibility Decision of 29 June 2006), Liberty and Others v. the UK (Judgment of 1 July 2008), and Kennedy v. the UK (Judgment of 18 May 2010).  See in particular the summaries in Weber and Saravia, paras. 93 – 95, and in Kennedy, paras. 151 – 154 (which quote Weber and Saravia, paras 93 – 95, thus reemphasising that the approach there summarised is now regarded as settled case-law).

After PRISM : 181 ONGs ask for less surveillance and improved data protection standards..new global standards…

International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance

THE ORIGINAL CALL IS  PUBLISHED HERE : https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text

Final version 10 July 2013

As technologies that facilitate State surveillance of communications advance, States are failing to ensure that laws and regulations related to communications surveillance adhere to international human rights and adequately protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. This document attempts to explain how international human rights law applies in the current digital environment, particularly in light of the increase in and changes to communications surveillance technologies and techniques. These principles can provide civil society groups, industry, States and others with a framework to evaluate whether current or proposed surveillance laws and practices are consistent with human rights.

These principles are the outcome of a global consultation with civil society groups, industry and international experts in communications surveillance law, policy and technology.

Preamble

Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights law.[1] Activities that restrict the right to privacy, including communications surveillance, can only be justified when they are prescribed by law, they are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and are proportionate to the aim pursued.[2]

Before public adoption of the Internet, well-established legal principles and logistical burdens inherent in monitoring communications created limits to State communications surveillance. In recent decades, those logistical barriers to surveillance have decreased and the application of legal principles in new technological contexts has become unclear. The explosion of digital communications content and information about communications, or “communications metadata” — information about an individual’s communications or use of electronic devices — the falling cost of storing and mining large sets of data, and the provision of personal content through third party service providers make State surveillance possible at an unprecedented scale.[3]

Meanwhile, conceptualisations of existing human rights law have not kept up with the modern and changing communications surveillance capabilities of the State, the ability of the State to combine and organize information gained from different surveillance techniques, or the increased sensitivity of the information available to be accessed.

The frequency with which States are seeking access to both communications content and communications metadata is rising dramatically, without adequate scrutiny.[4]

When accessed and analysed, communications metadata may create a profile of an individual’s life, including medical conditions, political and religious viewpoints, associations, interactions and interests, disclosing as much detail as, or even greater detail than would be discernible from the content of communications.[5] Despite the vast potential for intrusion into an individual’s life and the chilling effect on political and other associations, legislative and policy instruments often afford communications metadata a lower level of protection and do not place sufficient restrictions on how they can be subsequently used by agencies, including how they are data-mined, shared, and retained.

In order for States to actually meet their international human rights obligations in relation to communications surveillance, they must comply with the principles set out below. These principles apply to surveillance conducted within a State or extraterritorially.

The principles also apply regardless of the purpose for the surveillance — law enforcement, national security or any other regulatory purpose. They also apply both to the State’s obligation to respect and fulfil individuals’ rights, and also to the obligation to protect individuals’ rights from abuse by non-State actors, including corporate entities.[6] The private sector bears equal responsibility for respecting human rights, particularly given the key role it plays in designing, developing and disseminating technologies; enabling and providing communications; and – where required – cooperating with State surveillance activities. Nevertheless, the scope of the present Principles is limited to the obligations of the State.

Changing technology and definitions

“Communications surveillance” in the modern environment encompasses the monitoring, interception, collection, analysis, use, preservation and retention of, interference with, or access to information that includes, reflects, arises from or is about a person’s communications in the past, present or future. “Communications” include activities, interactions and transactions transmitted through electronic mediums, such as content of communications, the identity of the parties to the communications, location-tracking information including IP addresses, the time and duration of communications, and identifiers of communication equipment used in communications.

Traditionally, the invasiveness of communications surveillance has been evaluated on the basis of artificial and formalistic categories. Existing legal frameworks distinguish between “content” or “non-content,” “subscriber information” or “metadata,” stored data or in transit data, data held in the home or in the possession of a third party service provider.[7]

However, these distinctions are no longer appropriate for measuring the degree of the intrusion that communications surveillance makes into individuals’ private lives and associations. While it has long been agreed that communications content deserves significant protection in law because of its capability to reveal sensitive information, it is now clear that other information arising from communications – metadata and other forms of non-content data – may reveal even more about an individual than the content itself, and thus deserves equivalent protection. Today, each of these types of information might, taken alone or analysed collectively, reveal a person’s identity, behaviour, associations, physical or medical conditions, race, color, sexual orientation, national origins, or viewpoints; or enable the mapping of the person’s location, movements or interactions over time,[8] or of all people in a given location, including around a public demonstration or other political event. As a result, all information that includes, reflects, arises from or is about a person’s communications and that is not readily available and easily accessible to the general public, should be considered to be “protected information”, and should accordingly be given the highest protection in law.

In evaluating the invasiveness of State communications surveillance, it is necessary to consider both the potential of the surveillance to reveal protected information, as well as the purpose for which the information is sought by the State. Communications surveillance that will likely lead to the revelation of protected information that may place a person at risk of investigation, discrimination or violation of human rights will constitute a serious infringement on an individual’s right to privacy, and will also undermine the enjoyment of other fundamental rights, including the right to free expression, association, and political participation. This is because these rights require people to be able to communicate free from the chilling effect of government surveillance. A determination of both the character and potential uses of the information sought will thus be necessary in each specific case.

When adopting a new communications surveillance technique or expanding the scope of an existing technique, the State should ascertain whether the information likely to be procured falls within the ambit of “protected information” before seeking it, and should submit to the scrutiny of the judiciary or other democratic oversight mechanism. In considering whether information obtained through communications surveillance rises to the level of “protected information”, the form as well as the scope and duration of the surveillance are relevant factors. Because pervasive or systematic monitoring has the capacity to reveal private information far in excess of its constituent parts, it can elevate surveillance of non-protected information to a level of invasiveness that demands strong protection.[9]

The determination of whether the State may conduct communications surveillance that interferes with protected information must be consistent with the following principles.

The Principles

Legality: Any limitation to the right to privacy must be prescribed by law. The State must not adopt or implement a measure that interferes with the right to privacy in the absence of an existing publicly available legislative act, which meets a standard of clarity and precision that is sufficient to ensure that individuals have advance notice of and can foresee its application. Given the rate of technological changes, laws that limit the right to privacy should be subject to periodic review by means of a participatory legislative or regulatory process.

Legitimate Aim: Laws should only permit communications surveillance by specified State authorities to achieve a legitimate aim that corresponds to a predominantly important legal interest that is necessary in a democratic society. Any measure must not be applied in a manner which discriminates on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Necessity: Laws permitting communications surveillance by the State must limit surveillance to that which is strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Communications surveillance must only be conducted when it is the only means of achieving a legitimate aim, or, when there are multiple means, it is the means least likely to infringe upon human rights. The onus of establishing this justification, in judicial as well as in legislative processes, is on the State.

Adequacy: Any instance of communications surveillance authorised by law must be appropriate to fulfil the specific legitimate aim identified.

Proportionality: Communications surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that interferes with the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, threatening the foundations of a democratic society. Decisions about communications surveillance must be made by weighing the benefit sought to be achieved against the harm that would be caused to the individual’s rights and to other competing interests, and should involve a consideration of the sensitivity of the information and the severity of the infringement on the right to privacy.

Specifically, this requires that, if a State seeks access to or use of protected information obtained through communications surveillance in the context of a criminal investigation, it must establish to the competent, independent, and impartial judicial authority that:

  1. there is a high degree of probability that a serious crime has been or will be committed;
  2. evidence of such a crime would be obtained by accessing the protected information sought;
  3. other available less invasive investigative techniques have been exhausted;
  4. information accessed will be confined to that reasonably relevant to the crime alleged and any excess information collected will be promptly destroyed or returned; and
  5. information is accessed only by the specified authority and used for the purpose for which authorisation was given.

If the State seeks access to protected information through communication surveillance for a purpose that will not place a person at risk of criminal prosecution, investigation, discrimination or infringement of human rights, the State must establish to an independent, impartial, and competent authority:

  1. other available less invasive investigative techniques have been considered;
  2. information accessed will be confined to what is reasonably relevant and any excess information collected will be promptly destroyed or returned to the impacted individual; and
  3. information is accessed only by the specified authority and used for the purpose for which was authorisation was given.

Competent Judicial Authority: Determinations related to communications surveillance must be made by a competent judicial authority that is impartial and independent. The authority must be:

  1. separate from the authorities conducting communications surveillance;
  2. conversant in issues related to and competent to make judicial decisions about the legality of communications surveillance, the technologies used and human rights; and
  3. have adequate resources in exercising the functions assigned to them.

Due process: Due process requires that States respect and guarantee individuals’ human rights by ensuring that lawful procedures that govern any interference with human rights are properly enumerated in law, consistently practiced, and available to the general public. Specifically, in the determination on his or her human rights, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent, competent and impartial tribunal established by law,[10] except in cases of emergency when there is imminent risk of danger to human life. In such instances, retroactive authorisation must be sought within a reasonably practicable time period. Mere risk of flight or destruction of evidence shall never be considered as sufficient to justify retroactive authorisation.

User notification: Individuals should be notified of a decision authorising communications surveillance with enough time and information to enable them to appeal the decision, and should have access to the materials presented in support of the application for authorisation. Delay in notification is only justified in the following circumstances:

  1. Notification would seriously jeopardize the purpose for which the surveillance is authorised, or there is an imminent risk of danger to human life; or
  2. Authorisation to delay notification is granted by the competent judicial authority at the time that authorisation for surveillance is granted; and
  3. The individual affected is notified as soon as the risk is lifted or within a reasonably practicable time period, whichever is sooner, and in any event by the time the communications surveillance has been completed. The obligation to give notice rests with the State, but in the event the State fails to give notice, communications service providers shall be free to notify individuals of the communications surveillance, voluntarily or upon request.

Transparency: States should be transparent about the use and scope of communications surveillance techniques and powers. They should publish, at a minimum, aggregate information on the number of requests approved and rejected, a disaggregation of the requests by service provider and by investigation type and purpose. States should provide individuals with sufficient information to enable them to fully comprehend the scope, nature and application of the laws permitting communications surveillance. States should enable service providers to publish the procedures they apply when dealing with State communications surveillance, adhere to those procedures, and publish records of State communications surveillance.

Public oversight: States should establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of communications surveillance.[11] Oversight mechanisms should have the authority to access all potentially relevant information about State actions, including, where appropriate, access to secret or classified information; to assess whether the State is making legitimate use of its lawful capabilities; to evaluate whether the State has been transparently and accurately publishing information about the use and scope of communications surveillance techniques and powers; and to publish periodic reports and other information relevant to communications surveillance. Independent oversight mechanisms should be established in addition to any oversight already provided through another branch of government.

Integrity of communications and systems: In order to ensure the integrity, security and privacy of communications systems, and in recognition of the fact that compromising security for State purposes almost always compromises security more generally, States should not compel service providers or hardware or software vendors to build surveillance or monitoring capability into their systems, or to collect or retain particular information purely for State surveillance purposes. A priori data retention or collection should never be required of service providers. Individuals have the right to express themselves anonymously; States should therefore refrain from compelling the identification of users as a precondition for service provision.[12]

Safeguards for international cooperation: In response to changes in the flows of information, and in communications technologies and services, States may need to seek assistance from a foreign service provider. Accordingly, the mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) and other agreements entered into by States should ensure that, where the laws of more than one state could apply to communications surveillance, the available standard with the higher level of protection for individuals is applied. Where States seek assistance for law enforcement purposes, the principle of dual criminality should be applied. States may not use mutual legal assistance processes and foreign requests for protected information to circumvent domestic legal restrictions on communications surveillance. Mutual legal assistance processes and other agreements should be clearly documented, publicly available, and subject to guarantees of procedural fairness.

Safeguards against illegitimate access: States should enact legislation criminalising illegal communications surveillance by public or private actors. The law should provide sufficient and significant civil and criminal penalties, protections for whistle blowers, and avenues for redress by affected individuals. Laws should stipulate that any information obtained in a manner that is inconsistent with these principles is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding, as is any evidence derivative of such information. States should also enact laws providing that, after material obtained through communications surveillance has been used for the purpose for which information was given, the material must be destroyed or returned to the individual.

Signatories

  1. 7iber (Amman, Jordan)
  2. Access(International)
  3. Acción EsLaRed(Venezuela)
  4. ActiveWatch – – Media Monitoring Agency (Romania)
  5. Africa Platform for Social Protection – APSP (Africa)
  6. AGEIA Densi (Argentina)
  7. Agentura.ru (Russia)
  8. Aktion Freiheit statt Angst(Germany)
  9. Alfa-Redi  (LAC)
  10. All India Peoples Science Network (India)
  11. Alternatif Bilişim Derneği (Alternatif Bilişim) – Turkey(Turkey)
  12. Alternative Law Forum (India)
  13. Arab Digital Expression Foundation(Egypt)
  14. Article 19 (International)
  15. ASL19 (Canada/Iran)
  16. Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia – ACIJ (Argentina)
  17. Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet  (Colombia)
  18. Asociación de Internautas Spain (Spain)
  19. Asociación Paraguaya De Derecho Informático Y Tecnológico – APADIT (Paraguay)
  20. Asociación por los Derechos Civiles – ADC (Argentina)
  21. Aspiration (United States)
  22. Associação Brasileira de Centros de inclusão Digital – ABCID(Brasil)
  23. Associació Pangea Coordinadora Comunicació per a la Cooperació (Spain)
  24. Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression – AFTE (Egypt)
  25. Association for Progressive Communications – APC (International)
  26. Association for Proper Internet Governance (Switzerland)
  27. Association for Technology and Internet – APTI(Romania)
  28. Association of Community Internet Center – APWKomitel(Indonesia)
  29. Australia Privacy Foundation – APF (Australia)
  30. Bahrain Center for Human Rights (Bahrain)
  31. Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication – BNNRC (Bangladesh)
  32. BC Freedom of Information & Privacy Association (BC FIPA) (Canada)
  33. Benetech (USA/Global)
  34. Berlin Forum on Global Politics (BFoGP)(Germany)
  35. Big Brother Watch (United Kingdom)
  36. Bits of Freedom (Netherlands)
  37. Bolo Bhi (Pakistan)
  38. Brasilian Institute for Consumer Defense – IDEC(Brasil)
  39. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association – BCCLA (Canada)
  40. Bytes for All (Pakistan)
  41. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies(Egypt)
  42. Casa de Derechos de Quilmes (Argentina)
  43. Center for Digital Democracy (United States)
  44. Center for Internet & Society India (India)
  45. Center of Media Justice (United States)
  46. Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training(Canada)
  47. Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información – CELE(Argentina)
  48. Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS) da FGV  (Brasil)
  49. Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt: Polska (Poland)
  50. Citizen Lab (Canada)
  51. Citizens Network Watchdog Poland (Poland)
  52. ClubComputer.at (Austria)
  53. Collaboration on International ICT Policy in total East and South Africa (CIPESA) (Uganda / Africa )
  54. Colnodo(Colombia)
  55. Comisión Colombiana de Juristas(Colombia)
  56. Comité Cerezo México (México)
  57. Consumer Korea (South Korea)
  58. Consumers International(International)
  59. ContingenteMx  (México)
  60. datapanik.org (Belgium)
  61. DAWN Network  (International)
  62. DEJUSTICIA (Colombia/International)
  63. Delhi Science Forum (India)
  64. Digital Courage (Germany)
  65. Digital Rights Foundation  (Pakistan)
  66. Digitterra (International)
  67. DiploFoundation(International)
  68. Electronic Frontier Finland – EFFI (Finland)
  69. Electronic Frontier Foundation – EFF (International)
  70. Electronic Frontiers Australia – EFA  (Australia)
  71. Electronic Frontiers Italy – ALCEI  (Italy – Europe)
  72. Electronic Privacy Information Center – EPIC  (United States)
  73. European Digital Rights – EDRI  (Europe)
  74. European Information Society Institute – EISi(Slovakia)
  75. Fight for the Future  (United States)
  76. Foro Ciudadano de Participación por la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos – FOCO (Argentina)
  77. Foundation for Community Educational Media – FCEM (Thailand)
  78. Foundation for Information Policy Research – FIPR (United Kingdom)
  79. Free Network Foundation  (United States)
  80. Free Press (United States)
  81. Free Press Unlimited(Netherlands)
  82. Free Software Foundation Europe(Europe)
  83. Free Software Movement of India  (India)
  84. Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) (Thailand )
  85. Freedom of the Press Foundation (United States)
  86. Fundación Ambio (Costa Rica)
  87. Fundación Andina para la Observación y el Estudio de Medios  (Ecuador)
  88. Fundación Karisma (Colombia)
  89. Fundación Redes y Desarrollo – FUNREDES (República Dominicana – El Caribe)
  90. Fundación Vía Libre (Argentina)
  91. Global Voices Advocacy(International)
  92. Grupo de Software Libre de Cúcuta(Cúcuta, Norte de Santander, Colombia)
  93. Gulf Center for Human Rights  (Arab Gulf region)
  94. Hackerspace Rancho Electrónico (Mexico)
  95. Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Warsaw – HFHR (Poland)
  96. Hiperderecho (Peru)
  97. Human Rights Data Analysis Group(International)
  98. Human Rights Watch – HRW  (International)
  99. ICT Consumers Association of Kenya – ICAK(Kenya)
  100. Independent Journalism Center from Moldova(Republic of Moldova)
  101. Index on Censorship  (United Kingdom)
  102. Initiative for Freedom of Expression(Turkey)
  103. Initiative für Netzfreiheit  (Austria)
  104. Institute des Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication Pour le Developpement – INTIC4DEV (Africa)
  105. Instituto Baiano de Direito Processual Penal – IBADPP (Brasil/Bahia)
  106. Instituto Bem Estar Brasil (Brasil)
  107. Instituto NUPEF (Brasil)
  108. International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group(Canada)
  109. International Media Support – IMS  (International)
  110. International Modern Media Institute  (Iceland / International)
  111. Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University School of Information Studies (United States)
  112. Internet Society Palestine (Palestine)
  113. InternetNZ (New Zealand)
  114. Internews  (United States)
  115. IP Justice  (United States)
  116. Iraqi Network for Social Media (Iraq)
  117. Iriarte & Asociados  (Peru)
  118. ISOC Board of Trustees(International)
  119. IT for Change  (India)
  120. Iuridicum Remedium, o.s.(Czech Republic)
  121. Jonction (Mauritania, Senegal, Tanzania)
  122. Jordan Open Source Association(Jordan)
  123. Journaliste en danger (JED)  (Démocratique du Congo / Africa)
  124. Kenya ICT Action Network – KICTANet (Kenya)
  125. Kenyan Ethical and Legal Issues Network  (Kenya)
  126. La Quadrature du Net  (France/Europe)
  127. Latin American Network of Surveillance, Technology and Society Studies – LAVITS  (Latin America)
  128. Liberty  (United Kingdom)
  129. Liga Uruguaya de Defensa del Consumidor(Uruguay)
  130. Liga voor Mensenrechten vzw  (Belgium)
  131. May First / People Link  (United States/international)
  132. Media Action Grassroots Network – MAG-Net  (United States)
  133. Media Rights Agenda – MRA  (Ikeja, Lagos)
  134. MOGiS e.V. – A Voice for Victims (Germany)
  135. Movimento Mega (Brasil)
  136. Nawaat  (Tunisia)
  137. New York Chapter of the Internet Society(United States)
  138. Oneworld: Platform for Southeast Europe – OWPSEE  (Western Balkans)
  139. Open Internet Tools Project – Open ITP  (United States)
  140. Open Knowledge Foundation  (United Kingdom)
  141. Open Media and Information Companies Initiative – Open MIC  (United States)
  142. Open Net Korea (South Korea)
  143. Open Rights Group  (United Kingdom)
  144. Openmedia.ca  (Canada)
  145. Pacific Freedom Forum (Pacific Region)
  146. Pakistan Press Foundation – PPF (Pakistan)
  147. Palestinian Center for Development & Media Freedoms – MADA (Palestine)
  148. Panoptykon Foundation (Poland)
  149. Partners for Democratic Change Serbia(Serbia)
  150. People Who  (International)
  151. Privacy & Access Council of Canada(Canada)
  152. Privacy Activism  (United States)
  153. Privacy International (International)
  154. PROTEGE QV (Cameroon/ Africa)
  155. Public Association “Journalists” (Kyrgyzstan)
  156. RedPaTodos  (Colombia)
  157. Reporters Without Borders – RSF  (International)
  158. Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic – CIPPIC (Canada)
  159. SHARE Conference | SHARE Defense  (Balkan Region)
  160. Social Media Exchange  (Lebanon)
  161. Society for Knowledge Commons(India)
  162. Software Freedom Law Centre  (India)
  163. Southeast Asian Press Alliance (South East Asia)
  164. Statewatch  (United Kingdom)
  165. Sulá Batsú  (Costa Rica)
  166. Surveillance Studies Centre(Ontario, Canada)
  167. Surveillance Studies Network  (International)
  168. TagMeNot  Taiwan Association for Human Rights(Taiwan)
  169. TechLiberty (New Zealand)
  170. TEDIC  (Paraguay)
  171. Thai Netizen Network(Thailand)
  172. The New Renaissance Network(Sweden)
  173. TransMediar-Pimentalab [at] Universidade Federal de São Paulo  (Brazil)
  174. University of Campinas – Research Group CTeMe (Knowledge, Technology and Market) (Brasil)
  175. University of São Paulo’s Research Group on Access to Information Policies (GPoPAI-USP) (Brasil)
  176. Ushahidi  (International)
  177. VIBE!AT  (Austria)
  178. Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment(Bangladesh)
  179. West African Journalists Association (West Africa)
  180. WITNESS  (International)
  181. Zwiebelfreunde e.V.  (Germany)

[1]Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12, United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers Article 14, UN Convention of the Protection of the Child Article 16, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 17; regional conventions including Article 10 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4 of the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression, Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 21 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Free Expression and Access to Information, Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality.

[2]Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29; General Comment No. 27, Adopted by The Human Rights Committee Under Article 40, Paragraph 4, Of The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, November 2, 1999; see also Martin Scheinin, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,” 2009, A/HRC/17/34.

[3]Communications metadata may include information about our identities (subscriber information, device information), interactions (origins and destinations of communications, especially those showing websites visited, books and other materials read, people interacted with, friends, family, acquaintances, searches conducted, resources used), and location (places and times, proximities to others); in sum, metadata provides a window into nearly every action in modern life, our mental states, interests, intentions, and our innermost thoughts.

[4]For example, in the United Kingdom alone, there are now approximately 500,000 requests for communications metadata every year, currently under a self-authorising regime for law enforcement agencies who are able to authorise their own requests for access to information held by service providers. Meanwhile, data provided by Google’s Transparency reports shows that requests for user data from the U.S. alone rose from 8888 in 2010 to 12,271 in 2011. In Korea, there were about 6 million subscriber/poster information requests every year and about 30 million requests for other forms of communications metadata every year in 2011-2012, almost of all of which were granted and executed. 2012 data available at http://www.kcc.go.kr/user.do?mode=view&page=A02060400&dc=K02060400&boardId=1030&cp=1&boardSeq=35586

[5]See as examples, a review of Sandy Petland’s work, ‘Reality Mining’, in MIT’s Technology Review, 2008, available at http://www2.technologyreview.com/article/409598/tr10-reality-mining/ and also see Alberto Escudero-Pascual and Gus Hosein, ‘Questioning lawful access to traffic data’, Communications of the ACM, Volume 47 Issue 3, March 2004, pages 77 – 82.

[6]Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, May 16 2011, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf

[7]“People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers, the URLS that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers, and the books, groceries and medications they purchase to online retailers . . . I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.” United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 945, 957 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring).

[8]“Short-term monitoring of a person’s movements on public streets accords with expectations of privacy” but “the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.” United States v. Jones, 565 U.S., 132 S. Ct. 945, 964 (2012) (Alito, J. concurring).

[9]“Prolonged surveillance reveals types of information not revealed by short-term surveillance, such as what a person does repeatedly, what he does not do, and what he does ensemble. These types of information can each reveal more about a person than does any individual trip viewed in isolation. Repeated visits to a church, a gym, a bar, or a bookie tell a story not told by any single visit, as does one’s not visiting any of these places over the course of a month. The sequence of a person’s movements can reveal still more; a single trip to a gynecologist’s office tells little about a woman, but that trip followed a few weeks later by a visit to a baby supply store tells a different story.* A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups – and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.” U.S. v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (U.S., D.C. Circ., C.A.)p. 562; U.S. v. Jones, 565 U.S. __, (2012), Alito, J., concurring. “Moreover, public information can fall within the scope of private life where it is systematically collected and stored in files held by the authorities. That is all the truer where such information concerns a person’s distant past…In the Court’s opinion, such information, when systematically collected and stored in a file held by agents of the State, falls within the scope of ‘private life’ for the purposes of Article 8(1) of the Convention.” (Rotaru v. Romania, [2000] ECHR 28341/95, paras. 43-44.

[10]The term “due process” can be used interchangeably with “procedural fairness” and “natural justice”, and is well articulated in the European Convention for Human Rights Article 6(1) and Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

[11]The UK Interception of Communications Commissioner is an example of such an independent oversight mechanism. The ICO publishes a report that includes some aggregate data but it does not provide sufficient data to scrutinise the types of requests, the extent of each access request, the purpose of the requests, and the scrutiny applied to them. See http://www.iocco-uk.info/sections.asp?sectionID=2&type=top.

[12]Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, 16 May 2011, A/HRC/17/27, para 84.