Category: 8.2 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters

Standing up for children? The Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings

Original published on Tuesday, 22 December 2015 on EU LAW ANALYSIS

“If we don’t stand up for children, then we don’t stand for much.”

by Marian Wright Edelman (*)

Effective human rights protection is fundamental to any concept of fairness in the criminal justice system. Fairness, however, is relative: it may require different levels of protection in different circumstances.

Children require special measures of protection to take account of their particular vulnerability and needs (UN CRC Committee, General Comment 10, para 10). International standards confirm state obligations in this regard (e.g. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, the Council of EuropeGuidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice.). The need for extra protection has also been confirmed by the ECtHR which has stated that the right to a fair trial under Article 6 requires that: “a child charged with an offence is dealt with in a manner which takes full account of his age/level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities and that steps are taken to promote his ability to understand and participate in the proceeding”(T v. UK, No. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, at [84]).

The Commission states that approximately 1 million children face criminal justice proceedings in the EU each year (around 12% of the total) (Commission Staff Working Document 2013). It has gathered data on child justice and its reports shows wide variability in practice and procedure between States. The EU has now agreed the text of a Directive to establish specific procedural safeguards for child suspects. This is the fifth in a series of six EU-specific standards, all in the form of Directives, which have been agreed under a Roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights in criminal proceedings (on the fourth measure, on presumption of innocence, see discussion here; on the sixth proposal, on legal aid, see discussion here). The Directives attempt to promote consistency in procedural protection within the criminal justice systems of EU Member States. Measure E of the Roadmap requires special safeguards to be created for vulnerable suspects. A Recommendation setting out procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons has already been published. This post deals with the recently agreed Directive on child suspects.

THE DIRECTIVE Continue reading “Standing up for children? The Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings”

Zakharov v Russia: Mass Surveillance and the European Court of Human Rights

Reblogged also by EU LAW ANALYSIS on Wednesday, 16 December with permission from the IALS Information Lawand Policy Centre blog

by Lorna Woods, (*) 

Introduction 

The European Court of Human Rights has heard numerous challenges to surveillance regimes, both individual and mass surveillance, with mixed results over the years.   Following the Snowden revelations, the question would be whether the ECtHR would take a hard line particularly as regards mass surveillance, given its suggestion in Kennedy that indiscriminate acquisition of vast amounts of data should not be permissible. Other human rights bodies have condemned this sort of practice, as can be seen by the UN Resolution 68/167 the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age. Even within the EU there has been concern as can be seen in cases such as Digital Rights Ireland (discussed here) and more recently in Schrems (discussed here). The Human Rights Court has now begun to answer this question, in the Grand Chamber judgment in Zakharov v. Russia(47143/06), handed down on December 4 2015.

Facts

Zakharov, a publisher and a chairman of an NGO campaigning for media freedom and journalists’ rights, sought to challenge the Russian system for permitting surveillance in the interests of crime prevention and national security. Z claimed that the privacy of his communications across mobile networks was infringed as the Russian State, by virtue of Order No. 70, had required the network operators to install equipment which permitted the Federal Security Service to intercept all telephone communications without prior judicial authorisation.

This facilitated blanket interception of mobile communications. Attempts to challenge this and to ensure that access to communications was restricted to authorised personnel were unsuccessful at national level. The matter was brought before the European Court of Human Rights. He argued that the laws relating to monitoring infringe his right to private life under Article 8; that parts of these laws are not accessible; and that there are no effective remedies (thus also infringing Art. 13 ECHR).

Judgment

The first question was whether the case was admissible. The Court will usually not rule on questions in abstracto, but rather on the application of rules to a particular situation. This makes challenges to the existence of a system, rather than its use, problematic. The Court has long recognised that secret surveillance can give rise to particular features that may justify a different approach. Problematically, there were two lines of case law, one of which required the applicant to show a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that the security services had intercepted the applicant’s communications (Esbester) and which favoured the Government’s position, and the other which suggested the menace provided by a secret surveillance system was sufficient (Klass) and which favoured the applicant.

The Court took the opportunity to try to resolve these potentially conflicting decisions, developing its reasoning in Kennedy. It accepted the principle that legislation can be challenged subject to two conditions: the applicant potentially falls within the scope of the system; and the level of remedies available. This gives the Court a form of decision matrix in which a range of factual circumstances can be assessed. Where there are no effective remedies, the menace argument set out in its ruling in Klass would be accepted.

Crucially, even where there are remedies, an applicant can still challenge the legislation if ‘due to his personal situation, he is potentially at risk of being subjected to such measures’ [para 171]. This requirement of ‘potentially at risk’ seems lower than the ‘reasonable likelihood’ test in the earlier case of Esbester. The conditions were satisfied in this case as it has been recognised that mobile communications fall within ‘private life’ and ‘correspondence’ (see Liberty, para 56, cited here para 173).

This brought the Court to consider whether the intrusion could be justified. Re-iterating the well-established principles that, to be justified, any interference must be in accordance with the law, pursue a legitimate aim listed in Article 8(2) and be necessary in a democratic society, the Court considered each in turn.

The requirement of lawfulness has a double aspect, formal and qualitative. The challenged measure must be based in domestic law, but it must also be accessible to the person concerned and be foreseeable as to its effects (see e.g Rotaru). While these principles are generally applicable to all cases under Article 8 (and applied analogously in other rights, such as Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR), the Court noted the specificity of the situation. It stated that:

‘…. domestic law must be sufficiently clear to give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which public authorities are empowered to resort to any such measures’ [para 229].

In this, the Court referred to a long body of jurisprudence relating to surveillance, which recognises the specific nature of the threats that surveillance is used to address. In the earlier case of Kennedy for example, the Court noted that ‘threats to national security may vary in character and may be unanticipated or difficult to define in advance’ [para 159].

While the precision required of national law might be lower than the normal standard, the risk of abuse and arbitrariness are clear, so the exercise of any discretion must be laid down by law both as to its scope and the manner of its exercise. It stated that ‘it would be contrary to the rule of law … for a discretion granted to the executive in the sphere of national security to be expressed in terms of unfettered power’ [para 247]. Here, the Court noted that prior judicial authorisation was an important safeguard [para 249]. The Court gave examples of minimum safeguards:

  • The nature of offences which may give rise to an interception order
  • A definition of the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped
  • A limit on the duration of telephone tapping
  • Protections and procedures for use, storage and examination of resulting data
  • Safeguards relating to the communication of data to third parties
  • Circumstances in which data/recordings must be erased/destroyed (para 231)
  • the equipment installed by the secret services keeps no logs or records of intercepted communication, which coupled with the direct access rendered any supervisory arrangements incapable of detecting unlawful interceptions
  • the emergency procedure provided for in Russian law, which enables interception without judicial authorization, does not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse.

The Court then considered the principles for assessing whether the intrusion was ‘necessary in a democratic society’, highlighting the tension between the needs to protect society and the consequences of that society of the measures taken to protect it. The Court emphasised that it must be satisfied that there are adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.

In this oversight mechanisms are central, especially where individuals will not – given the secret and therefore unknowable nature of surveillance – be in a position to protect their own rights. The court’s preference is to entrust supervisory control to a judge. For an individual to be able to challenge surveillance retrospectively, affected individuals need either to be informed about surveillance or for individuals to be able to bring challenges on the basis of a suspicion that surveillance has taken place.

Russian legislation lacks clarity concerning the categories of people liable to have their phones tapped, specifically through the blurring of witnesses with suspects and the fact that the security services have a very wide discretion. The provisions regarding discontinuation of surveillance are omitted in the case of the security services. The provisions regarding the storage and destruction of data allow for the retention of data which is clearly irrelevant; and as regards those charged with a criminal offence is unclear as to what happens to the material after the trial.

Notably, the domestic courts do not verify whether there is a reasonable suspicion against the person in respect of whose communications the security services have requested interception be permitted. Further, there is little assessment of whether the interception is necessary or justified: in practice it seems that the courts accept a mere reference to national security issues as being sufficient.

The details of the authorisation are also not specified, so authorisations have been granted without specifying – for example – the numbers to be interception. The Russian system, which at a technical level allows direct access, without the police and security services having to show an authorisation is particularly prone to abuse. The Court determined that the supervisory bodies were not sufficiently independent. Any effectiveness of the remedies available to challenge interception of communications is undermined by the fact that they are available only to persons who are able to submit proof of interception, knowledge and evidence of which is hard if not impossible to come by.

Comments

The Court could be seen as emphasising in its judgment by repeated reference to its earlier extensive case law on surveillance that there is nothing new here. Conversely, it could be argued that Zakharov is a Grand Chamber judgment which operates to reaffirm and highlight points made in previous judgments about the dangers of surveillance and the risk of abuse. The timing is also significant, particularly from a UK perspective. Zakharov was handed down as the draft Investigatory Powers Bill was published. Cases against the UK are pending at Strasbourg, while it follows the ECJ’s ruling in Schrems, with Davis (along with the Swedish Tele2 reference), querying whether theDigital Rights ruling applies to national data retention schemes, now pending before the ECJ (on that issue, see discussion here). The ECtHR noted the Digital Rights Ireland case in its summary of applicable law.

In setting out its framework for decisions, the Court’s requirement of ‘potentially at risk’ even when remedies are available seems lower than the ‘reasonable likelihood’ test in Esbester. The Court’s concern relates to ‘the need to ensure that the secrecy of surveillance measures does not result in the measures being effectively unchallengeable and outside the supervision of the national judicial authorities and of the Court’ [para 171]. This broad approach to standing is, as noted by Judge Dedon’s separate but concurring opinion, in marked contrast to the approach of the United States Supreme Court in Clapper where that court ‘failed to take a step forward’ (Opinion, section 4).

The reassessment of ‘victim status’ simultaneously determines standing, the question of the applicability of Article 8 and the question of whether there has been an infringement of that right. The abstract nature of the review then means that a lot falls on the determination of ‘in accordance with the law’ and consequently the question of whether the measures (rather than individual applications) are necessary in a democratic society. The leads to a close review of the system itself and the safeguards built in. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the Court did not just look at the provisions of Russian law, but also considered how they were applied in practice.

The Court seemed particularly sceptical about broadly determined definitions in the context of ‘national, military, economic or ecological security’ which confer ‘almost unlimited degree of discretion’ [para 248]. Although the system required prior judicial authorisation (noted para 259], in this case it was not sufficient counter to the breadth of the powers. So, prior judicial authorisation will not be a ‘get out of gaol free’ card for surveillance systems. There must be real oversight by the relevant authorities.

Further, the Court emphasised the need for the identification of triggering factor(s) for interception of communications, as otherwise this will lead to overbroad discretion [para 248]. Moreover, the Court stated that the national authorisation authorities must be capable of ‘verifying the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the person concerned’ [260-2], which in the context of technological access to mass communications might be difficult to satisfy. The Court also required that specific individuals or premises be identified. If it applies the same principles to mass surveillance currently operated in other European states, many systems might be hard to justify.

A further point to note relates to the technical means by which the interception was carried out. The Court was particularly critical of a system which allows the security services and the police the means to have direct access to all communications. It noted that ‘their ability to intercept the communications of a particular individual or individuals is not conditional on providing an interception authorisation to the communications service provider’ [para 268], thereby undermining any protections provided by the prior authorisation system.

Crucially, the police and security services could circumvent the requirement to demonstrate the legality of the interception [para 269]. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the equipment used does not create a log of the interceptions which again undermines the supervisory authorities’ effectiveness [para 272]. This sort of reasoning could be applied in other circumstances where police and security forces have direct technical means to access content which is not dependent on access via a service provider (e.g. hacking computers and mobiles).

In sum, not only has the Russian system been found wanting in terms of compliance with Article 8, but the Court has drawn its judgment in terms which raised questions about the validity of other systems of mass surveillance.

  • Professor of Internet Law, University of Essex

 

NE BIS IN IDEM : interesting conclusions of Advocate General BOT

Without prejudice of the future Ruling of the Court on the subject, the  Advocate General Yves BOT conclusions published yesterday (FRENCH version HERE  ) are worth reading as they try to address  for the first time the compatibility of the Schengen Acquis with the european area of freedom security and justice as newly framed by the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights 

EDC 

CONCLUSIONS DE L’AVOCAT GÉNÉRAL YVES Bot présentées le 15 décembre 2015 (1)

Affaire C‑486/14 Procédure pénale contre Piotr Kossowski

[demande de décision préjudicielle formée par le Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (tribunal régional supérieur de Hambourg, Allemagne)] «Renvoi préjudiciel – Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice – Convention d’application de l’accord de Schengen – Articles 54 et 55, paragraphe 1, sous a) – Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne – Articles 50 et 52, paragraphe 1 – Principe ne bis in idem – Validité de la réserve à l’application du principe ne bis in idem – Acquis de Schengen – Principe de reconnaissance mutuelle – Confiance mutuelle – Poursuites pénales dans un autre État membre contre la même personne et en raison des mêmes faits – Notion de ‘même infraction’ – Notion de ‘jugement définitif’ – Examen au fond – Droit des victimes»

  1. La présente affaire pose, pour la première fois, la question de la validité des réserves à l’application du principe ne bis in idem, prévues à l’article 55 de la convention d’application de l’accord de Schengen (2), au regard de l’article 50 de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne (ci-après la «Charte»).
  2. En particulier, le Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (tribunal régional supérieur de Hambourg) demande si la possibilité offerte aux États membres, inscrite à l’article 55, paragraphe 1, sous a), de la CAAS, de ne pas appliquer ce principe lorsque les faits visés par le jugement étranger ont eu lieu soit en tout, soit en partie sur leur territoire constitue une limitation à l’article 50 de la Charte autorisée par l’article 52, paragraphe 1, de celle-ci.
  3. Cette affaire est, également, l’occasion pour la Cour de préciser sa jurisprudence sur la notion de «jugement définitif», au sens des articles 54 de la CAAS et 50 de la Charte.
  4. Dans les présentes conclusions, nous exposerons les raisons qui nous amènent à faire valoir que la réserve prévue à l’article 55, paragraphe 1, sous a), de la CAAS doit être déclarée invalide. Puis, nous expliquerons pourquoi, selon nous, le principe ne bis in idem énoncé aux articles 54 de la CAAS et 50 de la Charte doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une ordonnance de non-lieu adoptée par le ministère public et clôturant la procédure d’instruction ne peut pas être qualifiée de «jugement définitif», au sens de ces articles, lorsqu’il ressort manifestement de la motivation de celle-ci que les éléments qui constituent la substance même de la situation juridique, tels que l’audition de la victime et celle du témoin, n’ont pas été examinés par les autorités judiciaires concernées.

I –    Le cadre juridique

A –    Le droit de l’Union Continue reading “NE BIS IN IDEM : interesting conclusions of Advocate General BOT”

The new Europol: no more European FBI, not yet European NSA…

by Emilio DE CAPITANI

On November 30th the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee “informally”  endorsed (by 43 votes to 5 with 4 abstentions) the text that the Council will soon adopt as “its” position on the post-Lisbon European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol).

Following the “informal” interinstitutional practice of the so-called “legislative trilogues” (particularly the so-called “early second reading” agreements), the Chair of the LIBE Committee has already addressed a letter to the President of the Permanent Representatives Committee announcing that when the Council will formally send the text to the plenary, LIBE will recommend the Council’s text be approved  without amendments in the Parliament’s second reading so that the legislative procedure will be finalized and the “informally” agreed text (after some linguistic corrections) could be published in the coming months in the Official Journal.

I have already expressed my strong personal reservations on the legitimacy of such “informal” practices, notably because they are done in secret when treaties require the transparency of legislative debates (and negotiations) also for the Council. In the Europol case the latest public texts were: the first “reading” of the EP adopted on 25 February 2014 (at the end of the previous legislature) and the “general approach” of the Council  on 5 June 2014. Ten secret “trilogues” have been held in the following 16 months until suddenly, at the end of November 2015, a draft compromise has finally emerged and has been submitted to the vote of the Coreper and of the Parliamentary committee, paving the way to the “formal” legislative procedure.

Leaving aside European procedural (and democratic) intricacies, the text agreed (see below) is far below what could have been expected after the entry into force, six years ago, of the Lisbon Treaty. Because of the confidentiality of the negotiations, it is difficult to say now if such of a low-level compromise is due to the lack of ambition of the European Parliament or, more likely, of the EU Member States.

What is evident even from a quick reading, is that most of the possible improvements resulting from the Lisbon treaty have not been agreed and even if many things have apparently changed, the most important aspects are still as they were in the pre-Lisbon era (not to say the Maastricht era) and some new worrying aspects are taking shape.

First and foremost, the revision of the most important tool for police cooperation is taking place in the absence of a comprehensive post-Lisbon legally binding framework for police cooperation, as could have been done on the basis of art.87 of the TFEU.  So, even if the new Regulation recognises that “Large-scale criminal and terrorist networks pose a significant threat to the internal security of the Union and to the safety and livelihood of its citizens”  it  considers that such “EU internal security” matters should remain framed only by the Council and the Commission with “soft law” tools like the European Internal Security Strategy or the so-called “Policy Cycle”. The problem is that these tools associate the Member States only on a voluntary basis so there is no assurance that the common goals which have been defined will be reached nor is it possible to sanction those who do not contribute as was originally planned. Even the creation of a Center of excellence pooling important technical and human resources to fight Cybercrime or Terrorism as was (at last!) recently decided remains in the form of important opportunities offered to the EU member states and not of common binding tools. Unlike Frontex which is playing an increasing role in a well settled EU binding legislative framework (Schengen Border Code and EUROSUR), Europol is still floating in an unchartered legislative framework and building its own mission as a permanent laboratory or a taxi for Member states which are willing to use it. Last but not least, relying on “soft law instruments” makes the role of the European Parliament irrelevant, even if the latter try to follow up the initiatives taken by the Council and/or the Commission (a situation which is hardly acceptable for an EU which, after Lisbon, claims to be bound by democratic principles…) with non-binding resolutions.

This aspect should be very present in the EP’s mind as it has been co-responsible of EU policies linked with police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters for six years but for inexplicable reasons it continues to accept being marginalized, as happened with this draft Regulation in which the objectives of Europol’s activity will be defined only by …the Council and the Commission (not to speak of the EU Member States which are represented on its Management Board).

Even more surprisingly the European Parliament, which is also the Budgetary authority (which finances EUROPOL with 80/90 million euros per year), does not ask to have a say on the appointment of the Director of the Agency. Even in countries (such as the USA) where there is a clear distinction between the executive and the legislature the official responsible for federal agencies should have the approval of the Congress..

Even more worrying is the way in which the management of classified informations is framed. Here the draft Regulation takes the “originator principle” as the cornerstone of everything and places private entities, third countries and EU Member States or other EU and National agencies on the same ground. Now, in a European Union which claims to be founded on the principle of the rule of law, it is the legislator who should decide under which conditions information can be classified / declassified and has to be shared in the interest of the EU regardless of the good or bad will of the “originator”. Moreover, the principle of loyal cooperation should frame relations between EU institutions, agencies and bodies so that each one of them could fulfil its constitutional role regardless of the will of the “originator”.

Under this perspective the treatment that the European Parliament has accepted in this regulation is grotesque because it has accepted to be bound by the internal security rules of ….the Council and not by legislation to be adopted on the basis of art. 15 of the TFEU (and of the Charter). The point is not who should be the winner of an inter institutional game, as much as who among the EU institutions the European citizens can trust. By abdicating to its role the EP is thus deliberately weakening its own legitimacy and the democratic principles on which the EU claims to be founded.

Another weak aspect of the new text is the absence of a real link (and interdependence) with the judicial dimension of the European Freedom Security and Justice Area. Such a link, which is vital in the member states to avoid possible abuses on the police side, is practically absent in the new regulation which makes a vague reference to administrative agreements with Eurojust and plainly ignores its possible relation to the future European Public Prosecutor  who ” shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union’s financial interests,….” (art.86.2 TFEU). The point is that Europol, by claiming an increasing role in the collection and treatment of intelligence informations linked with Cybersecurity, Terrorism and PNR, is trying to become the main EU “intelligence information hub” which brings it closer to the model of an EU National Security Agency than to a European FBI as it was in its first phase.

A further weak aspect of the draft Regulation is the protection of personal data where the situation is so confused that, in a declaration attached to the text, the EP and Council already declare: “… that, following the adoption of the proposed General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Directive for data processing in the police and justice sector, including the new, soon to be created European Data Protection Board, and in light of the announced review of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, the different mechanisms for cooperation between the European Data Protection Supervisor and the national supervisory authorities in this field, including the Cooperation Board set up in this Regulation, should in the future be reorganised in such a way as to ensure effectiveness and consistency and avoid unnecessary duplication, without prejudice to the Commission’s right of initiative.”

Many other points may be raised, but if you are really interested, have a look at the text below (which is over 90 pages long..).

Continue reading “The new Europol: no more European FBI, not yet European NSA…”

Schengen, un coupable idéal ?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON CDRE SITE (25 NOVEMBRE 2015)

par Henri Labayle, 

Les réalisations européennes servent de bouc émissaire aux crises nationales. Ce n’est pas chose nouvelle. Après l’Euro, l’espace « Schengen » de l’Union est aujourd’hui sur la sellette. Les attentats terroristes lui auraient donné le coup de grâce, après ceux de la crise des migrants. Est-ce bien réaliste, est-ce vraiment opportun ?

Les discours officiels relèvent ici de la vieille fable de la paille et de la poutre. C’est aux Etats membres eux-mêmes que le conseil du ministre de l’Intérieur français de « se reprendre » devrait être donné tant la construction de Schengen est dépendante de leur volonté. Néanmoins, le réalisme interdit l’optimisme. Ayant perdu de vue ses caractéristiques initiales, Schengen n’échappera pas à une remise en question profonde.
Le fabuleux destin de l’espace Schengen, sa « success story », enregistrent incontestablement au coup d’arrêt, dont il conviendra de mesurer l’impact réel. Il y a des explications à cela.

1. Une construction datée

Les principes de Schengen sont inscrits désormais dans les traités : abolition des contrôles aux frontières intérieures, reportés là où l’espace commun est en contact avec les pays tiers. Sont-ils toujours à la hauteur des défis ? Répondent-ils à la menace terroriste comme à la pression migratoire ? A trop raisonner à logiciel constant, on peut en douter.

Le contexte de la création de Schengen, en 1985, a été oublié. Fruit d’un accord bilatéral franco-allemand, rejoint par les Etats du Bénélux, Schengen s’inscrivait dans un paysage aujourd’hui disparu : peu de participants, ensemble homogène animé des mêmes buts. Au point d’être scellé dans une convention d’application dont la date n’est pas indifférente : 1990, au lendemain de la chute du mur de Berlin …

En attendre une réponse efficace à des défis qui n’existaient pas lors de sa conception est un peu simpliste.
Que Schengen n’ait pas été à même, en 2015, d’arrêter les flots de réfugiés remontant le ventre mou du couloir des Balkans s’explique : il a été conçu en 1990 dans la logique d’un continent fermé, d’une Europe coupée en deux par le rideau de fer, ignorant les 7700 kilomètres de frontières terrestres devenues les siennes aujourd’hui. Figée dans une problématique Nord/Sud, l’Europe de l’époque n’avait aucune idée de la dimension Est/Ouest qui s’y est surajoutée.
Le contexte géopolitique de l’époque le confirme. L’environnement de Schengen était fait de l’Union soviétique de Gromyko au Maroc d’Hassan II en passant par la Tunisie de Ben Ali et la Libye de Kadhafi, sans parler de la Syrie ou de la Yougoslavie de Tito. Les dictateurs qui l’entouraient étaient ses meilleurs garde-frontières et la vague migratoire de 2015 inimaginable …

L’argument vaut aussi en matière terroriste. Oubli ou mauvaise foi des partisans d’un retour aux frontières nationales, celles-ci font obstacle à la lutte anti-terroriste. D’ETA réfugié en France à l’IRA en République d’Irlande ou à la bande à Baader en France, les exemples ne manquent pas. Leur maîtrise nationale empêcha-t-elle la vague d’attentats des années 80 en France ? Evidemment non.
Pour autant, « l’obsession » de la frontière justement décrite par Michel Foucher n’a pas disparu. En fait, Schengen se borne à déplacer le lieu où la frontière joue toujours son rôle de barrière, de protection. Il est un compromis entre l’ouverture d’un continent, notamment pour des besoins économiques, et sa fermeture, pour des raisons sécuritaires.

La crise de 2015 met ouvertement en question l’équilibre de ce compromis, sa capacité à assumer la fonction sécuritaire de la frontière commune. Les Etats, en trente ans, l’ont construit et maintenu envers toute logique, d’où leur responsabilité centrale.

2. Des compromis boiteux

Habillé d’un prétexte sécuritaire, ce que l’on appelait à l’époque le « déficit sécuritaire », Schengen répondait en fait à une autre réalité : celle du besoin économique d’un continent asphyxié, cloisonné en Etats aussi nombreux que petits. Le marché intérieur, lancé exactement à la même période, ne pouvait s’en satisfaire.
Le détour par la case « sécurité » dissimule à peine cette vérité. Ouvrir l’espace intérieur était d’abord un impératif économique, satisfaisant les opérateurs mais plus facile à assumer en mettant en avant la lutte contre l’immigration ou le crime. La réinstauration des contrôles provoquée par la crise des attentats de Paris confirme l’impact économique de cette ouverture : retards dans les aéroports, kilomètres de bouchons sur les autoroutes aux passages frontaliers avec l’Espagne ou l’Italie… Le compromis entre mobilité et sécurité, pourtant exclusivement au cœur du projet initial Schengen, s’est réalisé au détriment de la seconde. Quitte à ignorer les aspirations des citoyens européens.
D’autant que, dans sa quête de points d’appui, la construction européenne s’est emparée de Schengen pour en faire un symbole. Curieux retournement des choses, Schengen vilipendé lors de sa création, stigmatisé parce que qualifié de « liberticide » et que « l’Europe des polices » était alors un gros mot, fut ensuite présenté comme l’acquis principal de la liberté des citoyens européens. Avant aujourd’hui d’être à nouveau accusé de tous les maux d’une intégration européenne qu’il ne réalise pourtant pas.

La vérité se cache ailleurs. A force de non-dits et de compromis étatiques, la démarche sécuritaire quasi-exclusive sur laquelle reposait Schengen initialement s’est progressivement banalisée.
Elle imposait le respect d’un certain nombre de principes. Avant toute autre chose, celui de la responsabilité de chaque Etat, garant par son sérieux de la sécurité de tous. D’où le refus initial de l’ouvrir à des partenaires jugés peu fiables, de l’Italie à la péninsule ibérique ou à la Grèce.
La logique communautaire, celle des élargissements, l’a emporté sur ce paramètre. Une prétendue « confiance mutuelle » entre Etats a été vantée dans un univers où la méfiance demeure la règle, peu sensible au credo du monde libéral.

Puisque, depuis des années, la Grèce était une passoire et ne remplissait plus ses obligations, comment s’étonner que le système ait volé en éclat au début de l’été ? Puisque, depuis des années, le système dit de « Dublin » (imaginé à Schengen) ne remplissait pas son office, pourquoi s’étonner de l’abcès de fixation ouvert hier à Sangatte, aujourd’hui à Calais ? Enfin, faute de donner un sens au mot « sanction », pourquoi l’Union européenne ne s’est-elle pas préoccupée d’une réaction vigoureuse, réservant ses foudres aux eaux de baignade et aux aides d’Etat …

Arbitrant au moyen de compromis médiocres, quand il aurait sans doute fallu établir publiquement et respecter des priorités politiques, l’Union s’est donc trouvée démunie lorsque la bise est venue, lorsque les urnes nationales et européennes se sont emplies de votes protestataires. Faisant l’aubaine de partis extrémistes dépourvus de toute réponse réaliste, elle s’est ainsi placée sur la défensive.
L’impasse faite sur la dimension économique du contrôle des frontières illustre cette absence de pilotage. Le mirage des solutions technologiques de demain, les « smarts borders » et la biométrie, ajouté au lobbying des grandes multinationales désireuses d’obtenir les marchés publics y sacrifiant, ne peut dissimuler l’aberration consistant à confier la sécurité de tous à un Etat membre, la Grèce, étranglé financièrement et budgétairement pour les raisons que l’on sait …

S’il est exact que les Etats Unis consacrent 32 milliards de dollars à leur politique migratoire dont la moitié au contrôle des frontières, comment comprendre les 142 millions d’Euros du budget de Frontex ?

Dilué, Schengen a perdu de vue l’originalité de sa charge pour être appréhendé comme une politique ordinaire. Sauf que les Etats membres n’ont en rien abdiqué.

3. Une logique intergouvernementale

Laboratoire de la construction européenne, Schengen demeure une construction aux mains des Etats.
Au prix d’une certaine schizophrénie, les Etats ont en effet prétendu à la fois intégrer leur action mais en conserver la maîtrise. Entre ceux qui voulaient mais ne pouvaient pas en faire partie (la Bulgarie, la Roumanie), ceux qui pouvaient mais ne le voulaient pas (les iles britanniques), ceux qui ne pouvaient pas mais que l’on a voulu (la Suisse, la Norvège, l’Islande) et ceux qui ne pouvaient pas et dont on aurait pas du vouloir (la Grèce), Schengen est devenu un véritable patchwork.

La greffe aurait pu prendre. Elle n’a été qu’imparfaite.
D’abord car la diversité des situations nationales n’a pas disparu. D’une part, les législations et pratiques nationales demeurent suffisamment éloignées pour que l’effet « vases communicants » ne joue pas. Migrants comme criminels ont parfaitement identifié ces points faibles. D’autre part car le degré d’attraction des Etats membres de cet espace ne s’est pas réduit, rendant inutile le souhait de responsabiliser l’ensemble. Convaincus que l’Allemagne et la Suède étaient des eldorados, les demandeurs de refuge n’envisagent pas d’autre destination, pour la plus grande satisfaction des Etats membres qu’ils traversent et qui vont jusqu’à leur faciliter la tâche.

Ensuite, parce que les Etats refusent toujours la contrainte. En indiquant clairement dans son article 4 que « la sécurité nationale relève de la seule souveraineté de chaque Etat membre », le traité sur l’Union fixe une barrière infranchissable.

Les enseignements des commissions d’enquête au lendemain des attentats de Charlie Hebdo le confirment. Le dispositif européen est moins en cause que les conditions de sa mise en œuvre. La faillite de Schengen n’est pas dans la poursuite mais dans la prévention, dans le renseignement en amont des attentats et l’alimentation des outils communs qui n’est pas obligatoire. La qualité remarquable de l’action policière et judiciaire, y compris par delà la frontière franco-belge, ne dissimule la faillite de la prévention politique et policière, des deux cotés de cette frontière.
Comment Mehdi Nemmouche hier, Abaaoud ou les frères Abdeslam cette semaine, ont-ils pu perpétrer leurs crimes sans obstacle réel, échappant aux contrôles Schengen autant que nationaux ? Qui refusait jusqu’au Conseil de vendredi dernier d’inclure les « combattants étrangers » dans le SIS et pourquoi 5 Etats seulement fournissent-ils plus de la moitié des informations sur leurs déplacements au Système d’information d’Europol de l’aveu du coordinateur européen de la lutte contre le terrorisme ?

L’absence de transparence de l’Union ne facilite pas la réponse. La responsabilité des Etats membres est pourtant au cœur de ce fiasco, constat déjà posé après Charlie Hebdo, sans réelle suite.

La France n’y échappe pas, étonne par l’arrogance de notre discours public. Des failles de son contrôle judiciaire aux pannes de son système de fichier Chéops, à sa gestion des documents d’identité, aux  erreurs de ses services de renseignements ou aux moyens alloués et à l’autisme de ses gouvernants qui qualifient de simples « complicités françaises » l’action des terroristes de Paris, elle n’est pas en situation d’administrer les leçons qu’elle prétend donner à la Belgique et à l’Union.

Celle-ci doit pourtant se remettre en question.

Quant au périmètre de son action d’abord. Malgré le politiquement correct, la composition de l’espace commun où contrôles comme échanges de renseignement s’effectuent est une question ouverte. Les Pays Bas, comme d’autres, semblent réfléchir à un redimensionnement effectué soit par un repli, sur un petit nombre de partenaires performants, soit par une mise à l’écart, de membres jugés non fiables.

Quand au fond ensuite. Les principes d’organisation sur lesquels Schengen repose, frontières intérieures/extérieures demeurent aussi pertinents qu’hier. En revanche, ils ne peuvent plus se satisfaire du vide politique actuel. La cohérence exige de percevoir l’asile comme un même devoir, réclame de criminaliser le radicalisme et le terrorisme de façon identique. Ce préalable n’est pas satisfait aujourd’hui dans l’Union. De même que la « solidarité » doit avoir un sens concret pour les Etats membres, ces derniers doivent partager l’accueil des réfugiés et privilégier la coopération et la police judiciaires et la coordination des poursuites à l’action exclusive des services de renseignement. Dans tous les cas, il faut y mettre le prix.

Alors, pourquoi n’entendons nous pas les mots de « parquet européen », « d’équipes communes d’enquête », « d’Eurojust » ? Pourquoi l’essentiel du contingent de la relocalisation est-il encore vacant ? Parce que nous n’osons pas lever le tabou de l’action commune, de la quasi-fédéralisation qu’impliquent le développement des agences se substituant aux Etats défaillants, que nous prétendons que l’administration nationale des politiques européennes est toujours l’alpha et l’oméga de la construction européenne ?

L’hypothèse de l’avancée, même si celle du repli est peu crédible sinon impossible, est donc incertaine. A l’image de celle du projet européen tout entier dont Schengen demeure bien, toujours, un « laboratoire ».

Statewatch leaked document on the state of play of EU Antiterrorism policy (and its perspectives..)

On the Statewatch site is now accessible a very interesting document of the EU Counter terrorism Coordinator in preparation of the Justice and Home affairs Council meeting of December 4, 2015. Without prejudice of the political and legal judgment that anyone can have on the initiatives listed below the text gives a very comprehensive (and relatively objective ) view of the current state of play of the EU initiatives. It remains a mystery why this kind of purely descriptive documents are not directly accessible to the public, to the European and national parliaments.

EDC

DOC14438/15
NOTE From: EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator To: Delegations
Subject: Report: State of play on implementation of the statement of the Members of the European Council of 12 February 2015 on counter-terrorism

The extraordinary Council (JHA) of 20 November 2015 highlighted the need to accelerate the implementation of all areas covered by the statement on counter-terrorism issued by the Members of the European Council on 12 February 2015 (doc 14406/15). Therefore, in preparation of the Council of 4 December 2015, this paper lists all the measures foreseen in the February 2015 Statement and assesses their implementation. Implementation of the Conclusions of the Council of 20 November 2015 will enhance implementation of the February 2015 statement.

Documents 9422/1/15 and 12318/15 drafted by the EU CTC assessed the state of implementation in June and October 2015. Document 12551/15, drafted by the Presidency and the EU CTC, was endorsed by the Council in October 2015. It suggests five priorities for action by December 2015. Discussion in the extraordinary JHA Council of 20 November (doc 14406/15) and COSI of 16 November 2016 focused on firearms, strengthening external border controls, information sharing and terrorist financing (doc 14122/15).

I. ENSURING THE SECURITY OF CITIZENS

  1. PNR

Following the adoption of the rapporteur’s report by the LIBE Committee on 15 July 2015, four trilogues and three technical meetings have taken place. Important differences of view between the Council and the EP remain, notably on the inclusion of internal flights, the scope (transnational element of serious crime) and the period during which PNR data can be stored in an unmasked manner. Agreement on many other issues is outstanding.

The rapporteur’s ability to broker a deal with the Presidency is hampered by the fact that, except for the EPP shadow rapporteur, his report was not supported by other shadow rapporteurs, but by a heterogeneous majority across party lines. The EP’s commitment in its resolution of 11 February 2015 to work towards passage of a PNR Directive by the end of 2015 has so far not been shared by the shadow rapporteurs (S&D, ALDE, Greens, GUE) who voted against the Kirkhope report.

As long as there is no EU PNR Directive, Member States who do not have national legislation do not have a legal basis to acquire data from carriers. On 20 November 2015, the Council reiterated the urgency and priority to finalise an ambitious EU PNR before the end of 2015.

  1. Information sharing

–   Europol: by November 2015, 14 EU MS had connected their counter terrorism authorities to the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) hosted by Europol, a key enabling platform for information exchange. This means that half of the Member States are still not connected. Siena will be upgraded to “confidential” in 2016. Terrorism crime related information and intelligence exchange remains low. A dedicated area for counter-terrorism authorities was created in SIENA in October 2015, allowing for direct bilateral and multilateral communication between counter-terrorism authorities, with Europol and third parties with an operational cooperation agreement.

There has been a strong increase of the use of the Europol Information System (EIS) since December 2014. By 13 November 2015, 1595 foreign terrorist fighters have been registered in EIS by 14 EU MS, 5 third parties and Interpol. Nevertheless, considering the much higher number of existing EU foreign terrorist fighters and the fact that half of all EU MS still have not used EIS, the system is clearly a work in progress.

FP Travellers, both from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, is not yet a tool which can provide in depth analysis in relation to all contributed operational cases across the EU. To date, 50.45 % of all contributions originate from just five MS and one associated third country. 2081 confirmed foreign terrorist fighters have been entered into FP Travellers.

Europol will launch the European Counter-Terrorism Center (ECTC) in early 2016 to strengthen information exchange. This will provide inter alia a robust security and confidentiality framework. A more robust information-sharing and operational-coordination platform will be established at Europol as part of ECTC to connect the police CT authorities. In the Council Conclusions of 20 November 2015, Member States committed to seconding CT experts to the ECTC to form an enhanced cross-border investigation support unit and indicated that Eurojust should also be involved. As Europol is actively engaged in support of ongoing CT investigations in several Member States and has been tasked by the Council to set up the IRU and the ECTC, it will be important to increase Europol ‘s resources accordingly to achieve sustainability.

–   Eurojust: Operational cooperation and information sharing have increased considerably. But this still does not reflect the extent of ongoing investigations and prosecutions. Operational cooperation in terrorism cases referred to Eurojust for assistance has more than doubled (13 cases in 2014, 29 cases so far in 2015, cases related foreign terrorist fighters increased from 3 to 14). Ten coordination meetings in terrorist cases have been organized in 2015, four of which related to FTF. In November 2015, Eurojust coordinated a joint action in six countries in a case of a radical terrorist group, leading to 13 arrests. The information on prosecutions and convictions for terrorist offences shared with Eurojust has more than doubled since 2014. So far in 2015, 109 cases were opened at Eurojust in relation to information exchange on terrorist offences – 17 on court results and 92 on ongoing prosecutions.
This is a threefold increase on the figure for 2014. Eurojust also animates several relevant networks such as the network of national correspondents for terrorism matters and the consultative forum of prosecutors-General and Directors of Public Prosecutions, specialized cybercrime prosecutors etc. The association of Eurojust to Europol’s Focal Point Travellers has allowed for improved information exchange.

– Update of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism: The EU signed the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism and its additional Protocol on Foreign Terrorist Fighters on 22 October 2015 in Riga. The Commission plans to present a proposal for the update of the Framework Decision before the end of 2015.

  1. External border controls

    2. Continue reading “Statewatch leaked document on the state of play of EU Antiterrorism policy (and its perspectives..)”

Fundamental Rights Agency :  Surveillance by intelligence  services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU.  Mapping Member States’ legal frameworks

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : FULL REPORT AVAILABLE HERE

 Introduction

Recent revelations of mass surveillance underscore the importance of mechanisms that help prevent fundamental rights violations in the context of intelligence activities.

This FRA report aims to evaluate such mechanisms in place across the European Union (EU) by describing the current legal framework related to surveillance in the 28 EU Member States. The report first outlines how intelligence services are organised, describes the various forms surveillance measures can take and presents Member States’ laws on surveillance. It then details oversight mechanisms introduced across the EU, outlines the work of entities set up thereunder, and presents various remedies available to individuals seeking to challenge surveillance efforts.

The report does not assess the implementation of the respective laws, but maps current legal frameworks. In addition, it provides an overview of relevant fundamental rights standards, focusing on the rights to privacy and data protection.

Background

In June 2013, media worldwide began publishing the ‘Snowden documents’, describing in detail several surveillance programmes being carried out, including by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) and by the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). These brought to light the existence of extensive global surveillance. Details of these programmes, which set up a global system of digital data interception and collection, have been widely publicised 1 and critically assessed.2

Neither the US nor the British authorities questioned the authenticity of the revelations,3 and in some cases confirmed them.4 However, the media’s interpretation of the programmes was sometimes contested – for example, by the UK Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament 5 and academia.6

Since most of the Snowden revelations have not been recognised by the British government, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, in hearing challenges to the legality of the programmes, took the approach of hearing cases on the basis of hypothetical facts closely resembling those alleged by the media.7 For the Austrian Federal Agency for State Protection and Counter Terrorism (BVT), the Snowden revelations represented a “paradigm shift”: “Up until a few years ago, espionage was largely directed at state or business secrets, and not, for the most part, at people’s privacy, which can now be interfered with extensively by intelligence services since they possess the necessary technical resources to do so”. 8

The Snowden revelations were not the first to hint at the existence of programmes of large-scale communication surveillance set up in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks.9

But the magnitude of the revelations was unprecedented, potentially affecting the entire world.

The revelations triggered an array of reactions.10 In the intelligence community, and in particular among the specialised bodies in charge of overseeing the work of intelligence services, dedicated inquiries were conducted.11 The European Union reacted strongly.

The European Commission (EC), the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament (EP) reported on the revelations, expressing concern about mass surveillance programmes, seeking clarification from US authorities, and working on “rebuilding trust” in light of the damage created by the revelations.12

On 12 March 2014, the EP adopted a resolution on the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights, and transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs (the Resolution).13

The resolution drew on the in-depth inquiry that the EP tasked the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE) to conduct during the second half of 2013, shortly after the revelations on mass surveillance were published in the press.14

The wide-reaching resolution launched a “European Digital Habeas Corpus”, aimed at protecting fundamental rights in a digital age while focusing on eight key actions. In this context, the EP called on the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) “to undertake in-depth research on the protection of fundamental rights in the context of surveillance, and in particular on the current legal situation of EU citizens with regard to the judicial remedies available to them in relation to those practices”.15

Scope of the analysis

This report constitutes the first step of FRA’s response to the EP request. It provides an overview of the EU Member States’ legal frameworks regarding surveillance. FRA will further consolidate its legal findings with fieldwork research providing data on the day-to-day implementation of the legal frameworks. A socio-legal report based on an empirical study, to be published at a later stage, will expand on the findings presented ere.

While the EP requested the FRA to study the impact of ‘surveillance’ on fundamental rights, given the context in which the resolution was drafted, it is clear that ‘mass surveillance’ is the main focus of the Parliament’s current work. During the data collection phase, FRA used the Parliament’s definition to delineate the scope of FRA net’s research.

The EP resolution refers to “far-reaching, complex and highly techno-logically advanced systems designed by US and some Member States’ intelligence services to collect, store and analyse communication data, including content data, location data and metadata of all citizens around the world, on an unprecedented scale and in an indiscriminate and non-suspicion-based manner” (Paragaph 1).

This definition encompasses two essential aspects: first, a reference to a collection technique, and second, the distinction between targeted and untargeted collection.

The report does not analyse the surveillance techniques themselves, but rather the legal frameworks that enable these techniques. For Member States that carry out signals intelligence, the focus of the analysis is on this capacity, and not on other intrusive capabilities the services may have (such as wiretapping).

This report covers the work of intelligence services. It does not address the obligations of commercial entities which, willingly or not, provide intelligence services with the raw data that constitute Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), and are otherwise involved in the implementation of the surveillance programmes.16 The private sector’s role in surveillance requires a separate study.

While the premise of this report is the existence of an interference, since the “secret monitoring of communications” interferes with privacy rights from a fundamental rights point of view,17 the report focuses on analysing the legal safeguards in place in the EU Member States’ legal frameworks, and therefore on their approaches to upholding fundamental rights.

“Assuming therefore that there remains a legal right to respect for the privacy of digital communications (and this cannot be disputed (see General Assembly Resolution 68/167)), the adoption of mass surveillance technology undoubtedly impinges on the very essence of that right.” UN, Human Rights Council, Emmerson, B. (2014), para. 18

The report’s analysis of EU Member States’ legal frameworks tries to keep law enforcement and intelligence services separate. By doing so, the report excludes the work of law enforcement from its scope, while recognising that making this division is not always easy.

As stated by Chesterman, “Governments remain conflicted as to the appropriate manner of dealing with alleged terrorists, the imperative to detect and prevent terrorism will lead to ever greater cooperation between different parts of government”.18 The EP resolution recognises this and called on the Europol Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) to inspect whether information and personal data shared with Europol have been lawfully acquired by national authorities, particularly if the data were initially acquired by intelligence services in the EU or a third country.19

The Snowden revelations have also shed light on cooperation between intelligence services. This issue, important for the oversight of intelligence services’ activities, has been addressed by the EP resolution (Paragraph 22), by oversight bodies,20 by the Venice Commission,21 and by academia.22

This aspect, however, proved impossible to analyse in a comparative study, since, in the great majority of cases, cooperation agreements or modalities for transferring data are neither regulated by law nor public. This in itself creates a fundamental rights issue linked to the rule of law and, more particularly, regarding the importance of the existence of a law that is accessible to the public, as well as regarding the rules governing the transfer of personal data to third countries.

Though this report could not deal with this aspect beyond referencing the lack of proper control by over-sight bodies, it does raise important questions under relevant legal standards.

Fundamental rights and safeguards Continue reading “Fundamental Rights Agency :  Surveillance by intelligence  services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU.  Mapping Member States’ legal frameworks”

Attentats terroristes de Paris : “fluctuat nec mergitur”, envers et contre tout

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON CDRE SITE ON NOVEMBER 15 2015

 par Henri Labayle

Le carnage abominable commis dans les rues de Paris, ce vendredi soir, fait resurgir nombre d’interrogations déjà posées dans ces mêmes colonnes et restées sans réponses, il y a dix mois à peine.

Semblables et pourtant différentes, ces questions interpellent la société européenne autant que la société française. Elles obligent à ne pas laisser notre émotion prendre le pas sur ce qu’il reste de notre raison, à conserver deux convictions : celle d’un destin commun commandant que ne soit pas sacrifiés les principes d’une Communauté de droit .

1. Un destin commun

L’image donne souvent à la réalité l’apparence du spectacle. Les sociétés européennes se sont ainsi habituées au feuilleton médiatique de la violence terroriste, de ces attentats aux multiples formes allant de l’assassinat aveugle aux explosions meurtrières. Des rues d’Israël à celles de Beyrouth, hier encore, la relation de ces vies fauchées et de ces corps démembrés conservait jusqu’alors un caractère passablement artificiel pour les opinions publiques européennes. En tous cas pour celles qui n’avaient pas eu à en connaître dans leur chair comme en Irlande ou en Espagne. Loin et donc irréel …

Brutalement, l’attentat le plus violent que la France ait eu à connaître depuis plus d’un demi siècle ramène à la vérité. Les quatre vingt morts du Bataclan et la vision d’un corps de kamikaze devant le Stade de France donnent soudain une réalité tragique à des propos alarmistes que nous n’entendions pas, au sens premier du terme.

Nous ne comprenions pas en effet que l’on ne peut prétendre agir à l’extérieur de nos frontières sans conséquences. Nos sociétés n’ont pas davantage assimilé l’interdépendance dans laquelle nos destins particuliers se lient. De l’exode des réfugiés à travers le continent jusqu’aux attentats de Paris, toute lecture autocentrée ou hexagonale des évènements en cours est sans issue. Désormais, la libre circulation de la période contemporaine ne concerne pas seulement les individus mais elle intègre aussi la violence.

Or, là est le risque de voir le débat public s’égarer sans issue, dans la prétention qu’existerait une solution exclusivement nationale au défi que les sociétés démocratiques doivent relever. Au prétexte à peine dissimulé qu’à la pêche aux voix, l’argument fait recette.

Certes, l’Europe et ses constructions sécuritaires demeurent des boucs émissaires faciles et cette attitude présente, au demeurant, l’avantage d’éviter la question des responsabilités nationales. L’espace de libre circulation de Schengen constitue l’archétype de ces procès en sorcellerie, ceci avant même que les progrès des investigations policières nous fournissent un tableau plus précis des choses et de leur exacte dimension, internationale ou européenne. Il est donc mis à profit pour essayer de persuader qu’à l’heure d’Internet, guérites et képis seraient une protection imparable. Incapables de gérer hier Sangatte et aujourd’hui Calais, nous serions à même de garantir la sécurité nationale en nous privant de la seule échelle pertinente qui vaille, l’échelle européenne…

Que les inspirateurs et les commanditaires des attentats soient établis à l’étranger ne dissimule en rien la dimension nationale du crime, depuis l’implication de ses auteurs matériels jusqu’au lieu de sa réalisation. Le vieux fantasme de l’ennemi de l’étranger ne résiste guère à l’analyse et celle-ci doit nous conduire à l’introspection. Impossible de réduire ou d’oublier la nationalité française de plusieurs des terroristes. De même, si les yeux se tournent actuellement vers la Belgique, pays voisin, c’est là encore parce que des ressortissants français y auraient séjourné.

Dès lors et comme hier à propos des attentats de janvier, il se confirme malgré nos réticences à l’admettre lucidement que nos propres sociétés ont enfanté des monstres criminels. Une prise de conscience est donc indispensable, avant tout anathème et tout discours guerrier.

Prise de conscience, d’abord, de l’extrême vulnérabilité des sociétés modernes face à une criminalité atypique et asymétrique. Ni ses motivations ni ses modes opératoires ne sont encore pleinement assimilés par le corps social. Les sacrifices humains y sont délibérément assumés par ceux qui en sont à la fois auteurs et victimes. Dans l’histoire du terrorisme en Europe, que 7 des 8 assaillants répertoriés à ce jour se soient fait exploser avec leurs explosifs est une première, absolument terrifiante et sur les ressorts de laquelle nous devrions nous interroger en priorité. Elle exprime une détermination et une radicalisation extrêmes qui condamnent largement l’action policière à l’impuissance, malgré tous ses efforts et ses qualités.

Prise de conscience, ensuite, de ce que ce mal n’est pas propre à une société nationale mais qu’il frappe l’ensemble de l’Union européenne. De façon quasiment identique, avec ou sans usage du principe de laïcité ou du respect de la diversité culturelle et religieuse, la société européenne s’avère incapable de dégager une réponse audible et convaincant dans un combat d’idées qui conduit à perdre celui des valeurs.

Le juge de ses consciences lui-même, la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme, vient de témoigner récemment en Grande Chambre de son impuissance à dessiner clairement les frontières de la liberté d’expression. Stigmatisant avec facilité les insanités de Dieudonné ou la négation de la Shoah, il tolère de façon passablement discutable la marge d’appréciation des Etats en matière de génocide arménien … Sans curseur, comment imaginer alors de façon efficace et incontestable un encadrement législatif de cette liberté en Europe, face aux discours radicaux ?

Prise de conscience enfin de ce que l’abandon des questions sécuritaires au fond de commerce des partis extrémistes est une erreur couteuse. Elle alimente à la fois un sentiment désormais injustifié de quiétude civile mais elle risque aussi de nourrir la surenchère et l’excès dans la réaction politique, une fois la menace concrétisée. L’unanimité du pessimisme des services de sécurité français quant à la vraisemblance d’attentats graves contraste ici depuis de longues semaines avec le discours public aseptisé et politiquement correct.

De ce destin commun, manifestement, nombre d’acteurs politiques n’ont pas pris la mesure, préférant évaluer les avantages politiciens qu’ils en escomptent dans les échéances à venir.

Passe encore que l’effet d’aubaine ravisse les tenants des partis extrêmes. Il est moins normal que les représentants de certains Etats membres, comme la Pologne, se saisissent de la situation pour y trouver prétexte à habiller leur refus d’une politique commune d’asile et d’immigration actée à Lisbonne. Et il n’est pas davantage explicable que le souhait « d’une nouvelle politique européenne d’immigration » fasse irruption dans l’allocution d’un ancien Président de la République à un instant de l’enquête où la seule nationalité connue des criminels est française …

A bon escient, Jean Claude Juncker a donc raison d’inciter à ne pas confondre les victimes, que sont l’immense majorité des syriens fuyant l’Etat islamique, et les criminels, que sont leurs tortionnaires.

2. La guerre et le droit

L’outrance des propos tenus ici et là peut s’expliquer par la gravité et l’émotion du moment. Si elle n’a qu’un mérite, c’est de signifier à quel point les attentats de Paris trouvent leurs racines à l’extérieur du territoire de l’Union.

A user d’un mot, la « guerre », qu’il faudrait manier avec précaution face à ce qui est avant tout un crime au sens de la loi pénale, comme y incitent justement Bertrand Badie ou un ancien premier ministrefrançais, les autorités françaises n’ont pas réalisé à quel point les conséquences en étaient prévisibles. Le droit ne peut y être indifférent et le respect du principe de légalité doit demeurer l’axe de notre réaction.

Passons sur le fait que les juristes demeurent interrogatifs sur certaines formes de l’action militaire sur les théâtres d’opération extérieurs, à commencer par l’élimination physique de l’adversaire. N’en restons qu’aux suites de l’abus des postures martiales, inversement proportionnelles à la réalité concrète de trois bombardements aériens en trois mois.

Il ne fallait guère être devin pour comprendre que la propagande terroriste s’en nourrirait pour désigner ses objectifs opérationnels, en toute indifférence pour la subtilité de nos positionnements diplomatiques. « Faire la guerre » implique de se placer sous le feu de l’adversaire et s’il n’est pas certain que l’opinion française en ait eu conscience, il est sûr en revanche que nul ne le lui a expliqué franchement …

Quitte à le faire, sans doute fallait-il introduire alors une cohérence plus grande dans la conduite de cette diplomatie. Par exemple envers les Etats qui sont les soutiens à peine déguisés de l’Etat islamique en Syrie et contribuent dans le même temps à équilibrer notre commerce extérieur, à notre grande satisfaction. Peut-être était-il bon aussi de déployer toute l’énergie nécessaire pour faire le jour sur les circuits de financement et de commercialisation de ses rapines par le même Etat islamique, au vu et au su de tous, au besoin en s’intéressant aux ambiguïtés du comportement des autorités turques et de ses voisins …

Par ailleurs, les outils juridiques et opérationnels de la réponse au terrorisme qui avaient fait l’objet de sévères mises en cause, au plan européen comme national, appellent immédiatement un examen attentif. Gérer la crise en termes militaires n’empêchera pas de se livrer à l’évaluation de ce qui a été fait ou pas depuis 10 mois et les attentats de Charlie Hebdo.

La mise en cause de l’entraide répressive européenne à l’époque a eu, au moins, des effets visibles. Les autorités allemandes ont ainsi immédiatement fait état de l’arrestation d’un suspect, muni d’armes et apparemment à destination de la France. Les prolongements de l’enquête vers la Belgique sont plus significatifs encore de la parenté des inquiétudes et de la qualité des coopérations. A la fois parce que la Belgique s’avère être un centre névralgique de l’action radicale islamique en Europe, comme en témoignent les affaires Nemmouche ou celle du Thalys, mais aussi comme l’illustre le nombre sidérant de « combattants étrangers » qui en partent.

L’impuissance des autorités publiques belges à y faire face, 6 services de police et 19 municipalités différentes y concourent en vain (!!!) dans la banlieue bruxelloise, démontre si besoin en était la nécessité d’une action concertée. Deux des kamikazes français identifiés n’y résidaient-ils pas ? La qualité des échanges et des contrôles Schengen est une réponse avérée en ce sens. Le partage d’expérience aussi.

Précédant le point d’étape qui devait être effectué en tout état de cause en Conseil au mois de décembre, les constats du coordinateur de la lutte contre le terrorisme devraient être instructifs de ce point de vue quant au degré d’engagement des Etats membres dans la lutte contre le terrorisme. Des indicateurs communs de risques positivés par la Commission à l’alimentation des fichiers tels que le SIS II ou le fichier Europol consacré aux « combattants étrangers » ou à l’entraide judiciaire au sein d’Eurojust, l’ambiance a changé. Elle semble, en tous cas, différente, au regard de ce qu’elle était au lendemain des attentats de Charlie Hebdo.

Pour autant, les résistances du passé ne sont pas entièrement dépassées. S’il est trop tôt pour en évaluer l’impact dans le schéma criminel qui a conduit aux attentats de Paris, il conviendra de les confronter aux conclusions des diverses commissions d’enquête ayant fait suite aux attentats de janvier, à l’Assemblée nationale comme au Sénat.

La tonalité du discours des autorités françaises n’est guère encourageante de ce point de vue, à écouter les propos pontifiants de leur ministre de l’Intérieur. Lecture purement intergouvernementale de cette coopération, silence sur les organes intégrés que sont Eurojust ou Europol et la valeur ajoutée que pourrait fournir une coordination européenne de la poursuite, impasse sur le caractère obligatoire que devrait présenter cette coopération au regard du traité de Lisbonne et sur la sanction des Etats défaillants, il semble que le logiciel de nombre d’Etats membres, dont le nôtre, n’ait guère été mis à jour depuis Maastricht.

Ont-ils pris conscience que le monde et ses dangers ont changé et que le besoin de sécurité de ses citoyens est pourtant le moteur le plus fort de l’intégration européenne ?

A new wideranging EP resolution on mass surveillance in the “post Snowden” (and Schrems ) era.

Below the provisional text voted yesterday 29 October by the European Parliament on mass surveillance and violation of fundamental rights to privacy and data protection. The press has already highlighted that  the EP voted by 285 to 281 to call on the member states to “drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender”. Moreover  the EP  calls on the Commission to give consideration to the impact of the Court of Justice Safe Harbor ruling of 6 October on any other instruments for the transfer of personal data to the US and to report on the matter by the end of 2015.  Very rightly the Strasbourg plenary acknowledges that the Court ruling “has confirmed the long-standing position of Parliament regarding the lack of an adequate level of protection under this instrument” so that the Commission has to “immediately take the necessary measures to ensure that all personal data transferred to the US are subject to an effective level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the EU”.

But here is the point : bulk collection of personal data (as foreseen by several US practices agreed with the EU in the PNR and TFTP cases) are not themselves threatening the “essence” of data protection under EU law as protected by the art.52 of the EU Charter of fundamental rights so that they are no negotiable even with the best friend and ally such the USA? 

Passed by 342 votes to 274 , with 29 abstentions, this is a center-left resolution where liberals and socialists voted together but (not surprisingly) EPP and ECR voted against. In this legislature where socialists and conservatives have created a sort of “grosse Koalitionen” the text risks to be only a political gesture before the public opinion if not followed by consistent votes on the legal binding texts currently on the EP table such as the data protection reform or the transatlantic negotiations on the so called “umbrella agreement” and on “Safe Harbor”.

Moreover the text even if criticizes the European Commission as “inadequate” and evokes the possibility of a “fail to act” against it does not triggers it. The risk is then this very inspired and solid text remains a toothless tiger.. The coming weeks will show if this tiny majority will be confirmed when the post-Lisbon data protection reform will be voted.

Emilio De Capitani

European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on the follow-up to the EP resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens (2015/2635(RSP)) Continue reading “A new wideranging EP resolution on mass surveillance in the “post Snowden” (and Schrems ) era.”

The law enforcement challenges of cybercrime: are we really playing catch-up?

FULL STUDY ( 68 pages) ACCESSIBLE HERE

Abstract : This study was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee. With a number of high-profile criminal cases, such as ‘Silk Road’, cybercrime has been very much in the spotlight in recent years, both in Europe and elsewhere. While this study shows that cybercrime poses significant challenges for law enforcement, it also argues that the key cybercrime concern for law enforcement is legal rather than technical and technological. The study further underlines that the European Parliament is largely excluded from policy development in the field of cybercrime, impeding public scrutiny and accountability. AUTHOR(S): Dr. Ben Hayes, Dr. Julien Jeandesboz, Dr. Francesco Ragazzi, Dr. Stephanie Simon, and Prof. Valsamis Mitsilegas.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cybercrime has become one of the key priorities for EU law enforcement agencies, as demonstrated by the establishment of the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) in January 2013 and the development of specific European threat assessment reports in this field. High-profile criminal investigations such as the ‘Silk Road’ case, major data breaches or particularly nefarious hacks or malware attacks have been very much in the spotlight and widely reported in the media, prompting discussions and debates among policymakers and in law enforcement circles. Over the last few months, the cybercrime debate has specifically evolved around the issue of encryption and anonymisation.

In this context, this Study argues that debates on the law enforcement challenge of cybercrime in the EU should steer clear both of doomsday scenarios that overstate the problem and scepticism that understates it, and that the key cybercrime concern for law enforcement is legal in nature rather than simply technical and technological. Indeed, the Study finds that the key challenge for law enforcement is the lack of an effective legal framework for operational activities that guarantees the fundamental rights principles enshrined in EU primary and secondary law.

In order to address this core argument, this Study starts by analysing claims and controversies over the Internet ‘going dark’ on law enforcement (Section 2). It shows that these claims have been made for quite some time and should be considered as moral panics rather than accurate reflections of the challenges posed by cybercrime to law enforcement. Moreover, current controversies rehash older ones, conflating law enforcement concerns with intelligence-gathering and surveillance concerns. Without denying the fact that criminal activities do take place online, pose technical difficulties to law enforcement services and require the availability of specific capabilities, this section demonstrates that these difficulties do not impede criminal investigation to such an extent that exceptional means should be envisaged. While these technical aspects need to be considered, they raise issues related to policy and law rather than technology as such. The policy and law-related challenges are made greater by the fact that defining cybercrime is not an easy task. Very broad definitions have been adopted at the EU level, often leading to overlapping and sometimes conflicting mandates.

Section 3 thus analyses the institutional architecture of EU cybercrime policy. It shows that the complexity of cybercrime measures and the expansive mandates and number of actors involved in their implementation make it difficult to ascertain and circumscribe the full scope of EU cybercrime policy. Whereas the Council of Europe (CoE) sought to codify cybercrime powers into an international convention, much of the EU’s policy to fight cybercrime is based on non-legislative measures, including operational cooperation and ad hoc public-private partnerships. Furthermore, important distinctions and restrictions designed to ensure a ‘separation of powers’ between state agencies concerned with law enforcement (cyber-policing), civil protection (cybersecurity), national security (cyber-espionage) and military force (offensive cyber capabilities) are harder to distinguish in the area of cybercrime, at both national and EU level. Section 3 underlines that, within this complex architecture, and with the blurring of the boundaries between those responsible for policing the Internet, for gathering intelligence from it, for conducting cyber-espionage against foreign targets, and for ensuring the safety of critical internet infrastructure, the European    Parliament    and    civil    society    are    largely    excluded    from    policy development, impeding public scrutiny and accountability. This compounds the EP’s existing problems in ensuring that fundamental rights and data protection are diligently protected in the area of justice and home affairs.

In light of these gaps in oversight and accountability, Section 4 analyses in particular the challenge of jurisdiction, cooperation and fundamental rights safeguards. This section argues that operational challenges in cybercrime law enforcement do not change the obligation of EU institutions and Member States to ensure the safeguarding of EU fundamental rights in any operating framework of internal or transnational cooperation in law enforcement and criminal justice. Cybercrime law enforcement frequently cites the challenge of accessing and transferring data through existing Mutual Legal Assistance agreements. Yet practices taken outside of established legal channels cannot guarantee rights protections and run the risk of raising mistrust in the general public, the private sector and in transatlantic relations. Furthermore, across the spectrum of cybercrime prevention, investigation, and prosecution, the particular geography of the digital environment is said to complicate the traditional territorial foundations of law. Law enforcement bodies make continuous reference to the ways in which traditional legal structures stand in the way of operations. However, an updated legal framework designed to overcome these challenges should foreground fundamental rights concerns, which are essential to ensure due process and a necessary condition for the successful prosecution of cybercriminal offences.

In light of these findings, the Study concludes with key recommendations for the European Parliament.

In particular, to ensure that the Parliament is not marginalised altogether with respect to the implementation and review of EU cybercrime policies by the exercise of delegated   powers,   EU   agency   discretion   and   non-legislative   decision-making   bodies, further monitoring of EU council structures, Europol and international cooperation agreements is required (Recommendation 1).

Moreover, the EP should ensure that the development of any cooperation/information-sharing framework guarantees the respect of fundamental rights (Recommendation 2).

In light of the current discussions on a revised CoE Cybercrime Convention, the European Parliament should, further, ensure that the Convention’s obligations are consistent with EU law and fundamental rights protections (Recommendation 3).

The EP must also ensure that cybercrime is not used as a justification to undermine new information security protocols and the right to privacy in telecommunications, both of which are fundamental components of the functioning of the Internet (Recommendation 4).

Finally, if European law enforcement agencies need to keep pace with technological change, it is imperative that training courses on cybercrime forensics and digital evidence include an applied fundamental rights component (Recommendation 5).

Continue reading…