Legal Frameworks for Hacking by Law Enforcement: Identification, Evaluation and Comparison of Practices

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF A STUDY FOR THE EP LIBE COMMITEE.

FULL TEXT ACCESSIBLE  HERE  

by Mirja  GUTHEIL, Quentin  LIGER, Aurélie  HEETMAN, James  EAGER, Max  CRAWFORD  (Optimity  Advisors)

Hacking by law enforcement is a relatively new phenomenon within the framework of the longstanding public policy problem of balancing security and privacy. On the one hand, law enforcement agencies assert that the use of hacking techniques brings security, stating that it represents a part of the solution to the law enforcement challenge of encryption and ‘Going Dark’ without systematically weakening encryption through the introduction of ‘backdoors’ or similar techniques. On the other hand, civil society actors argue that hacking is extremely invasive and significantly restricts the fundamental right to privacy. Furthermore, the use of hacking practices pits security against cybersecurity, as the exploitation of cybersecurity vulnerabilities to provide law enforcement with access to certain data can have significant implications  for  the security of the internet.

Against this backdrop, the present study provides the LIBE Committee with relevant, actionable insight into the legal frameworks and practices for hacking by law enforcement. Firstly, the study examines the international and EU-level debates on the topic of hacking by law enforcement (Chapter 2), before analysing the possible legal bases for EU intervention in the field (Chapter 3). These chapters set the scene for the primary focus of the study: the comparative analysis of legal frameworks and practices for hacking by law enforcement across six selected Member States (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK), with further illustrative examples from three non-EU countries (Australia, Israel and the US) (Chapter 4). Based on these analyses, the study concludes (Chapter 5) and presents concrete recommendations and policy proposals for  EU  action  in  the field (Chapter 6).

The international and EU-level debates on the use of hacking techniques by law enforcement primarily evolve from the law enforcement challenge posed by encryption – i.e. the  ‘Going  Dark’  issue.

Going Dark is a term used to describe [the] decreasing ability [of law enforcement agencies] to lawfully access and examine evidence at rest on devices and evidence in motion across   communications   networks.1

According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), law enforcement agencies are not able to investigate illegal activity and prosecute criminals without this evidence. Encryption technologies are cited as one of the major barriers to this access. Although recent political statements from several countries (including France, Germany, the UK and the US) seemingly call for ‘backdoors’ to encryption technologies, support for strong encryption at international and EU fora remains strong. As such, law enforcement agencies across the world started to use hacking techniques to bypass encryption. Although the term ‘hacking’ is not used by law enforcement agencies, these practices essentially mirror the techniques used by hackers (i.e. exploiting any possible vulnerabilities – including technical, system  and/or human  vulnerabilities  – within  an  information  technology  (IT) system).

Law enforcement representatives, such as the IACP and Europol, report that access to encrypted and other data through such hacking techniques brings significant investigative benefits. However, it is not the only possible law enforcement solution to the ‘Going Dark’ issue. Outside of the scope of this study, the other options include: requiring users to provide their password or decrypt their data; requiring technology vendors and service providers to bypass   the   security   of   their   own   products   and   services;   and   the    systematic   weakening   of encryption through the mandated introduction of ‘backdoors’ and/or weakened standards for encryption.

With the benefits of hacking established, a 2016 Joint Statement published by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) and Europol2 noted that the use of  hacking  techniques also brings  several   key  risks.

The primary risk relates to the fundamental right to privacy and freedom of expression and information, as enshrined in international, EU and national-level law. Hacking techniques are extremely invasive, particularly when compared with traditionally intrusive investigative tools (e.g. wiretapping, house searches etc.). Through hacking, law enforcement can gain access to all data stored or in transit from a device; this represents a significant amount of data (e.g. a recent investigation by Dutch law enforcement collected seven terabytes of data, which translates into around 86 million pages of Microsoft Word documents3), as well as extremely sensitive data (e.g. a person’s location and movements, all communications, all stored data etc.). Consequently, the use of hacking techniques will inherently restrict the fundamental right to privacy.

Therefore, current debates at international and EU fora focus on assessing and providing recommendations on the current legal balances and safeguards for the restriction of the right to privacy by hacking techniques. However, these debates have assumed that hacking practices are necessary for law enforcement and simply require governing laws; they have not discussed whether the use of hacking techniques by law enforcement is necessary and proportional. The law enforcement assertions regarding the necessity of these invasive tools have  not   been  challenged.

The second key risk relates to the security of the internet. Law enforcement use of hacking techniques has the potential to significantly weaken the security of the internet by “[increasing] the attack surface for malicious abuse”4. Given that critical infrastructure and defence organisations, as well as law enforcement agencies themselves, use the technologies targeted and potentially weakened by law enforcement hacking, the potential ramifications reach  far  beyond  the intended  target.

As such, debates at international and EU fora focus on the appropriate balances between security and privacy, as well as security and cybersecurity. Regarding security v. privacy, the debates to date have assessed and provided recommendations on the legislative safeguards required to ensure that hacking techniques are only permitted in situations where a restriction of the fundamental right to privacy is valid in line with EU legislation (i.e. legal, necessary and proportional). Regarding security v. cybersecurity, the debates have been limited and primarily centre around the use and/or reporting of zero-day vulnerabilities discovered  by  law enforcement agencies.

Further risks not discussed in the Joint Statement but covered by this study include: the risks to territorial sovereignty – as law enforcement agencies may not know the physical location of the target data; and the risks related to the supply and use of commercially-developed hacking tools by governments with poor consideration for human rights.

Alongside the analysis of international and EU debates, the study presents hypotheses on the legal  bases  for  EU  intervention  in  the  field. Although  possibilities for  EU  legal  intervention  in several areas are discussed, including mutual admissibility of evidence (Art. 82(2) TFEU), common investigative techniques (Art. 87(2)(c) TFEU), operational cooperation (Art. 87(3) TFEU) and data protection (Art. 16 TFEU, Art. 7 & 8 EU Charter), the onus regarding the development of legislation in the field is with the Member States. As such, the management of the risks associated with law enforcement activities is governed at the Member State level.

As suggested by the focus of the international and EU discussions, concrete measures need to be stipulated at national-level to manage these risks. This study presents a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks for hacking by law enforcement across six Member States, as well as certain practical aspects of hacking by law enforcement, thereby providing an overview of the primary Member State mechanisms for the management of these risks. Further illustrative examples are provided from research conducted in three non-EU countries.

More specifically, the study examines the legal and practical balances and safeguards implemented at national-level to ensure: i) the legality, necessity and proportionality of restrictions to the fundamental  right  to  privacy;   and ii) the security  of  the internet.

Regarding restrictions to the right to privacy, the study first examines the existence of specific legal frameworks for hacking by law enforcement, before exploring the ex-ante and ex-post conditions and mechanisms stipulated to govern restrictions of the right to privacy and ensure they are legal, necessary  and  proportional.

It is found that hacking practices are seemingly necessary across all Member States examined, as four Member States (France, Germany, Poland and the UK) have adopted specific legislative provisions and the remaining two are in the legislative process. For all Member States except Germany, the adoption of specific legislative provisions occurred in 2016 (France, Poland and the UK) or will occur later (Italy, the Netherlands).  This  confirms the  new  nature  of these investigative techniques.

Additionally, law enforcement agencies in all Member States examined have used, or still use, hacking techniques in the absence of specific legislative provisions, under so-called ‘grey area’ legal provisions. Given the invasiveness of hacking techniques, these grey areaprovisions are considered  insufficient  to adequately  protect the right to privacy.

Where specific legal provisions have been adopted, all stakeholders agree that a restriction of the right to privacy requires the implementation of certain safeguards. The current or proposed legal frameworks of all six Member States comprise a suite of ex-ante conditions and ex-post mechanisms that aim to ensure the use of hacking techniques is proportionate and necessary. As recommended by various UN bodies, the provisions of primary importance include judicial authorisation of hacking practices, safeguards related to the nature, scope and duration of possible measures (e.g. limitations to crimes of a certain gravity and the  duration  of  the hack,  etc.) and  independent   oversight.

Although many of these types of recommended conditions are common across the Member States examined – demonstrated in the below table – their implementation parameters differ. For instance, both German and Polish law permit law enforcement hacking practices without judicial authorisation in exigent circumstance if judicial authorisation is achieved in a specified timeframe. However, the timeframe differs (three days in Germany compared with five days in Poland). These differences make significant difference, as the Polish timeframe was criticised  by the Council  of  Europe’s  Venice Commission  for being  too long.5

Furthermore, the Member States examined all accompany these common types of ex-ante and ex-post conditions with different, less common conditions. This is particularly true for ex-post oversight mechanisms. For instance, in Poland, the Minister for internal affairs provides macro-level information to the lower (Sejm) and upper (Senat) chambers of Parliament;6 and in the UK, oversight is provided by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who reviews all cases of hacking by law enforcement, and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which  considers disputes or  complaints surrounding  law enforcement  hacking.7

Key ex-ante considerations
Judicial authorisation The    legal    provisions    of    all    six    Member    States    require    ex-ante judicial        authorisation        for        law        enforcement        hacking.        The information  to  be  provided  in  these requests differ.

Select     Member     States     (e.g.     Germany,     Poland,     the     UK)     also provide for hacking without prior judicial authorisation in exigent circumstances  if  judicial  authorisation  is subsequently  provided. The timeframes  for  ex-post authorisation  differ.

Limitation by crime and  duration All  six Member  States  restrict  the  use  of  hacking  tools  based  on the   gravity   of   crimes.    In    some    Member   States,    the    legislation presents  a  specific  list  of  crimes  for  which  hacking  is permitted; in     others,     the    limit    is    set     for    crimes    that    have    a    maximum custodial    sentence   of   greater   than    a   certain   number    of   years. The lists and numbers  of years required differ by Member   State.

Many Member States also restrict the duration for which hacking may   be   used.   This   restriction   ranges   from   maximum   1   month (France, Netherlands) to a maximum of 6 months (UK), although extensions     are     permitted     under     the     same     conditions     in     all Member States.

Key ex-post considerations
Notification and effective remedy Most    Member    States    provide    for    the    notification    of    targets    of hacking  practices and  remedy  in  cases  of unlawful   hacking.
Reporting and oversight Primarily, Member States report at a micro-level through logging hacking  activities and  reporting them  in  case  files.

However,   some   Member   States   (e.g.   Germany,   Poland   and   the UK) have macro-level  review  and  oversight mechanisms.

Furthermore, as regards the issue of territoriality (i.e. the difficulty law enforcement agencies face obtaining the location of the data to be collected using hacking techniques), only one Member States, the Netherlands, legally permits the hacking of devices if the location is unknown. If the device turns out to be in another jurisdiction, Dutch law enforcement must apply  for Mutual  Legal  Assistance.

As such, when aggregated, these provisions strongly mirror Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the UN recommendations and paragraph 95 of the ECtHR  judgement  in  Weber and  Saravia  v.  Germany.  However,   there are  many,  and  varied, criticisms when the Member State conditions are examined in isolation. Some of the provisions criticised include: the limits based on the gravity of crimes (e.g. the Netherlands, France and Poland); the provisions for notification and effective remedy (e.g. Italy and the Netherlands); the process for screening and deleting non-relevant data (Germany); the definition of devices that can be targeted (e.g. the Netherlands); the duration permitted for hacking (e.g. Poland); and a lack of knowledge amongst the judiciary (e.g. France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands).With this said, certain elements, taken in isolation, can be called good  practices. Such  examples  are  presented below.

Select  good practice: Member State legislative frameworks

Germany: Although they were deemed unconstitutional in a 2016 ruling, the provisions for the screening and deletion of data related to the core area of private life are a positive step. If the provisions are amended, as stipulated in the ruling, to ensure screening by an independent body, they would provide strong protection for the targeted individual’s private data.

Italy: The 2017 draft Italian law includes a range of provisions related to the development and monitoring of the continued use of hacking tools. As such, one academic stakeholder remarked that the drafting of the law must have been driven by technicians. However, these provisions bring significant benefits to the legislative provisions in terms of supervision and oversight of the use of hacking tools. Furthermore, the Italian draft law takes great care to separate the functionalities of the hacking tools, thus protecting against the overuse or abuse of a  hacking tool’s  extensive  capabilities.

Netherlands: The Dutch Computer Crime III Bill stipulates the need to conduct a formal proportionality assessment for each hacking request, with the assistance of a dedicated Central Review Commission (Centrale Toetsings Commissie). Also, the law requires rules to be laid down on the authorisation and expertise of the investigation officers that can perform hacking.

With these findings in mind, the study concludes that the specific national-level legal provisions examined provide for the use of hacking techniques in a wide array of circumstances. The varied combinations of requirements, including those related to the gravity of crimes, the duration and purpose of operations and the oversight, result in a situation where the law does not provide for much stricter conditions than are necessary for less  intrusive  investigative activities such  as interception.

Based on the study findings,  relevant  and actionable policy proposals and recommendations have been developed under the two key elements: i) the fundamental right  to  privacy;  and  ii) the security  of the internet.

Recommendations and policy proposals: Fundamental  right  to  privacy

It is recommended that the use of ‘grey area’ legal provisions is not sufficient to protect the fundamental right to privacy. This is primarily because existing legal provisions do not provide for the more invasive nature of hacking techniques and do not provide for the legislative precision  and  clarity  as  required  under  the  Charter and the  ECHR.

Furthermore, many of these provisions have only recently been enacted. As such, there is a need for robust evidence-based monitoring and evaluation of the practical application of these provisions. It is therefore recommended that the application of these new legal provisions is evaluated regularly at national level, and that the results of these evaluations are  assessed at  EU-level.

If specific legislative provisions are deemed necessary, the study recommends a range of good practice, specific ex-ante and ex-post provisions governing the use of hacking practices by  law  enforcement  agencies. These are detailed  in  Chapter 6.

Policy proposal 1: The European Parliament should pass a resolution calling on Member States to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment when new laws are proposed to permit and govern the use of hacking techniques by law enforcement agencies. This Privacy Impact Assessment should focus on the necessity and proportionality of the use of hacking tools and should  require input  from  national  data protection  authorities.

Policy proposal 2: The European Parliament should reaffirm the need for Member States to adopt a clear and precise legal basis if law enforcement agencies are to use hacking techniques.

Policy proposal 3: The European Parliament should commission more research or encourage the European Commission or other bodies to conduct more research on the topic. In response to the Snowden revelations, the European Parliament called on the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to thoroughly research fundamental rights protection in the context of surveillance. A similar brief related to the legal frameworks governing the use of hacking techniques by law enforcement across all EU Member States would act as an invaluable piece  of  research.

Policy proposal 4: The European Parliament should encourage Member States to undertake evaluation and monitoring activities on the practical application of the new legislative provisions  that  permit  hacking  by  law  enforcement  agencies.

Policy proposal 5: The European Parliament should call on the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to develop a practitioner handbook related to the governing of hacking by law enforcement. This handbook should be intended for lawyers, judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and others working with national authorities, as well as non­governmental organisations and other bodies confronted with legal questions in the areas set out by the handbook. These areas should cover the invasive nature of hacking techniques and relevant safeguards as per international and EU law and case law, as well as appropriate mechanisms for supervision  and   oversight.

Policy proposal 6: The European Parliament should call on EU bodies, such as the FRA, CEPOL and Eurojust, to provide training for national-level members of the judiciary and data protection authorities, in collaboration with the abovementioned handbook, on the technical means for hacking in use across the Member States, their potential for invasiveness and the principles of  necessity  and  proportionality in  relation  to these  technical  means.

Recommendations and policy proposals: Security of  the  internet

The primary recommendation related to the security of the internet is that the position of the EU against the implementation of ‘backdoors’ and similar techniques, and in support of strong encryption standards, should be reaffirmed, given the prominent role encryption plays in our society and its importance to the EU’s Digital Agenda. To support this position, the EU should ensure continued engagement with global experts in computer science as well as civil society privacy and  digital  rights groups.

The actual impacts of hacking by law enforcement on the security of the internet are yet unknown. More work should be done at the Member State level to assess the potential impacts such that these data can feed in to overarching discussions on the necessity and proportionality of law enforcement hacking. Furthermore, more work should be done, beyond understanding the risks to the security of the internet, to educate those involved in the authorisation and use of  hacking  techniques by law enforcement.

At present, the steps taken to safeguard the security of the internet against the potential risks of hacking are not widespread. As such, the specific legislative provisions governing the use of hacking techniques by law enforcement, if deemed necessary, should safeguard the security of the internet and the security of the device, including reporting the vulnerabilities used to gain access to a device to the appropriate technology vendor or service provider; and  ensure  the  full  removal  of  the software  or hardware from the targeted  device.

Policy proposal 7: The European Parliament should pass a resolution calling on Member States to conduct an Impact Assessment to examine the impact of new or existing laws governing  the  use  of hacking  techniques by  law  enforcement on  the  security  of  the internet.

Policy proposal 8: The European Parliament, through enhanced cooperation with Europol
and the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), should
reaffirm its commitment to strong encryption considering discussions on the topic of hacking by law enforcement. In addition, the Parliament should reaffirm its opposition to the implementation of  
backdoors and  similar techniques in information technology infrastructures or  services.

Policy proposal 9: Given the lack of discussion around handling zero-day vulnerabilities, the European Parliament should support the efforts made under the cybersecurity contractual Public-Private Partnership (PPP) to develop appropriate responses to handling zero-day vulnerabilities, taking into consideration the risks related to fundamental rights and the security  of the internet.

Policy proposal 10: Extending policy proposal 4, above, the proposed FRA handbook should also cover the risks  posed  to  the  security  of the  internet  by  using hacking  techniques.

Policy proposal 11: Extending policy proposal 5, training provided to the judiciary by EU bodies such as FRA, CEPOL and Eurojust should also educate these individuals on the risks posed  to  the security  of  the internet  by  hacking  techniques.

Policy proposal 12: Given the lack of discussion around the risks posed to the security of the internet by hacking practices, the European Parliament should encourage debates at the appropriate fora specific to understanding this risk and the approaches to managing this risk. It is encouraged that law enforcement representatives should be present within such discussions.

Parliamentary Tracker : the EP incoming resolution on the EU-USA (so called) “Privacy Shield”…

 

NOTA BENE : Below the text that will be submitted to vote at the next EP plenary. As in previous occasions the text is well drafted, legally precise and it confirms the high level of  competence that the European Parliament (and its committee LIBE) has developed along the last 17 years from the first inquiry on Echelon (2000), the Safe Harbor (2000), the EU-USA agreement on PNR (since 2003 a thirteen year long lasting saga…) the SWIFT agreement (2006) …

What is puzzling are the critics raised against the  so called “adequacy finding” mechanism which empowers the European Commission to decide if a third Country protect “adequately” the EU citizens personal data. The weaknesses of the Commission face to our strongest transatlantic ally  were already very well known when recently the parliamentarians have reformed the European legal framework on data protection in view of the new legal basis foreseen by the Treaties and in the art. 7 and 8 of the EU Charter.  However the EP did’nt try to strengthen the “adequacy” mechanism by transforming it at least in a “delegated” function (so that it would had been possible for the EP to block something which could had weackened our standards).

Now the US Congress is weakening the (already poor) US data protection and the new US administration will probably go in the same direction.  It seems to me to easy  to complain now on something that you had recently the chance to fix..

Let’s now hope that the Court of Justice by answering to the request for opinion on the EU-Canada PNR agreement will give to the EU legislator some additional recommendations but as an EU citizen I would had preferred a stronger EU legislation instead of been ruled by european or national Judges…

Emilio De Capitani

B8‑0235/2017 European Parliament resolution on the adequacy of the protection afforded by the EU-US Privacy Shield (2016/3018(RSP))

The European Parliament,

–        having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Articles 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–        having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Data Protection Directive)[1],

–        having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters[2],

–        having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)[3], and to Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA[4],

–        having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 October 2015 in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner[5],

–        having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council of 6 November 2015 on the transfer of personal data from the EU to the United States of America under Directive 95/46/EC following the judgment by the Court of Justice in Case C-362/14 (Schrems) (COM(2015)0566),

–        having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council of 10 January 2017 on Exchanging and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World (COM(2017)0007),

–        having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2016 in Cases C-203/15 Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen and C-698/15 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and Others[6],

–        having regard to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield[7],

–        having regard to Opinion 4/2016 of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on the EU-US Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision[8],

–        having regard to the Opinion of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party of 13 April 2016 on the EU-US Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision[9] and its Statement of 26 July 2016[10],

–        having regard to its resolution of 26 May 2016 on transatlantic data flows[11],

–        having regard to Rule 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

  1. whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment of 6 October 2015 in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner invalidated the Safe Harbour decision and clarified that an adequate level of protection in a third country must be understood to be ‘essentially equivalent’ to that guaranteed within the European Union by virtue of Directive 95/46/EC read in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter ‘the EU Charter’), prompting the need to conclude negotiations on a new arrangement so as to ensure legal certainty on how personal data should be transferred from the EU to the US;
  2. whereas, when examining the level of protection afforded by a third country, the Commission is obliged to assess the content of the rules applicable in that country deriving from its domestic law or its international commitments, as well as the practice designed to ensure compliance with those rules, since it must, under Article 25(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, take account of all the circumstances surrounding a transfer of personal data to a third country; whereas this assessment must not only refer to legislation and practices relating to the protection of personal data for commercial and private purposes, but must also cover all aspects of the framework applicable to that country or sector, in particular, but not limited to, law enforcement, national security and respect for fundamental rights;
  3. whereas transfers of personal data between commercial organisations of the EU and the US are an important element for the transatlantic relationships; whereas these transfers should be carried out in full respect of the right to the protection of personal data and the right to privacy; whereas one of the fundamental objectives of the EU is the protection of fundamental rights, as enshrined in the EU Charter;
  4. whereas in its Opinion 4/2016 the EDPS raised several concerns on the draft Privacy Shield; whereas the EDPS welcomes in the same opinion the efforts made by all parties to find a solution for transfers of personal data from the EU to the US for commercial purposes under a system of self-certification;
  5. whereas in its Opinion 01/2016 on the EU-US Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision the Article 29 Working Party welcomed the significant improvements brought about by the Privacy Shield compared with the Safe Harbour decision whilst also raising strong concerns about both the commercial aspects and access by public authorities to data transferred under the Privacy Shield;
  6. whereas on 12 July 2016, after further discussions with the US administration, the Commission adopted its Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250, declaring the adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the Union to organisations in the United States under the EU-US Privacy Shield;
  7. whereas the EU-US Privacy Shield is accompanied by several letters and unilateral statements from the US administration explaining, inter alia, the data protection principles, the functioning of oversight, enforcement and redress and the protections and safeguards under which security agencies can access and process personal data;
  8. whereas in its statement of 26 July 2016, the Article 29 Working Party welcomes the improvements brought by the EU-US Privacy Shield mechanism compared with Safe Harbour and commended the Commission and the US authorities for having taken into consideration its concerns; whereas the Article 29 Working Party indicates, nevertheless, that a number of its concerns remain, regarding both the commercial aspects and the access by US public authorities to data transferred from the EU, such as the lack of specific rules on automated decisions and of a general right to object, the need for stricter guarantees on the independence and powers of the Ombudsperson mechanism, and the lack of concrete assurances of not conducting mass and indiscriminate collection of personal data (bulk collection);
  9. Welcomes the efforts made by both the Commission and the US administration to address the concerns raised by the CJEU, the Member States, the European Parliament, data protection authorities (DPAs) and stakeholders, so as to enable the Commission to adopt the implementing decision declaring the adequacy of the EU-US Privacy Shield;
  10. Acknowledges that the EU-US Privacy Shield contains significant improvements regarding the clarity of standards compared with the former EU-US Safe Harbour and that US organisations self-certifying adherence to the EU-US Privacy Shield will have to comply with clearer data protection standards than under Safe Harbour;
  11. Takes note that as at 23 March 2017, 1 893 US organisations have joined the EU-US Privacy Shield; regrets that the Privacy Shield is based on voluntary self-certification and therefore applies only to US organisations which have voluntarily signed up to it, which means that many companies are not covered by the scheme;
  12. Acknowledges that the EU-US Privacy Shield facilitates data transfers from SMEs and businesses in the Union to the US;
  13. Notes that, in line with the ruling of the CJEU in the Schrems case, the powers of the European DPAs remain unaffected by the adequacy decision and they can, therefore, exercise them, including the suspension or the ban of data transfers to an organisation registered with the EU-US Privacy Shield; welcomes in this regard the prominent role given by the Privacy Shield Framework to Member State DPAs to examine and investigate claims related to the protection of the rights to privacy and family life under the EU Charter and to suspend transfers of data, as well as the obligation placed upon the US Department of Commerce to resolve such complaints;
  14. Notes with satisfaction that under the Privacy Shield Framework, EU data subjects have several means available to them to pursue legal remedies in the US: first, complaints can be lodged either directly with the company or through the Department of Commerce following a referral by a DPA, or with an independent dispute resolution body, secondly, with regard to interferences with fundamental rights for the purpose of national security, a civil claim can be brought before the US court and similar complaints can also be addressed by the newly created independent Ombudsperson, and finally, complaints about interferences with fundamental rights for the purposes of law enforcement and the public interest can be dealt with by motions challenging subpoenas; encourages further guidance from the Commission and DPAs to make those legal remedies all the more easily accessible and available;
  15. Acknowledges the clear commitment of the US Department of Commerce to closely monitor the compliance of US organisations with the EU-US Privacy Shield Principles and their intention to take enforcement actions against entities failing to comply;
  16. Reiterates its call on the Commission to seek clarification on the legal status of the ‘written assurances’ provided by the US and to ensure that any commitment or arrangement foreseen under the Privacy Shield is maintained following the taking up of office of a new administration in the United States;
  17. Considers that, despite the commitments and assurances made by the US Government by means of the letters attached to the Privacy Shield arrangement, important questions remain as regards certain commercial aspects, national security and law enforcement;
  18. Specifically notes the significant difference between the protection provided by Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC and the ‘notice and choice’ principle of the Privacy Shield arrangement, as well as the considerable differences between Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC and the ‘data integrity and purpose limitation’ principle of the Privacy Shield arrangement; points out that instead of the need for a legal basis (such as consent or contract) that applies to all processing operations, the data subject rights under the Privacy Shield Principles only apply to two narrow processing operations (disclosure and change of purpose) and only provide for a right to object (‘opt-out’);
  19. Takes the view that these numerous concerns could lead to a fresh challenge to the decision on the adequacy of the protection being brought before the courts in the future; emphasises the harmful consequences as regards both respect for fundamental rights and the necessary legal certainty for stakeholders;
  20. Notes, amongst other things, the lack of specific rules on automated decision-making and on a general right to object, and the lack of clear principles on how the Privacy Shield Principles apply to processors (agents);
  21. Notes that, while individuals have the possibility to object vis-à-vis the EU controller to any transfer of their personal data to the US, and to the further processing of those data in the US where the Privacy Shield company acts as a processor on behalf of the EU controller, the Privacy Shield lacks specific rules on a general right to object vis-à-vis the US self-certified company;
  22. Notes that only a fraction of the US organisations that have joined the Privacy Shield have chosen to use an EU DPA for the dispute resolution mechanism; is concerned that this constitutes a disadvantage for EU citizens when trying to enforce their rights;
  23. Notes the lack of explicit principles on how the Privacy Shield Principles apply to processors (agents), while recognising that all principles apply to the processing of personal data by any US self-certified company ‘[u]nless otherwise stated’ and that the transfer for processing purposes always requires a contract with the EU controller which will determine the purposes and means of processing, including whether the processor is authorised to carry out onward transfers (e.g. for sub-processing);
  24. Stresses that, as regards national security and surveillance, notwithstanding the clarifications brought by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in the letters attached to the Privacy Shield framework, ‘bulk surveillance’, despite the different terminology used by the US authorities, remains possible; regrets the lack of a uniform definition of the concept of bulk surveillance and the adoption of the American terminology, and therefore calls for a uniform definition of bulk surveillance linked to the European understanding of the term, where evaluation is not made dependent on selection; stresses that any kind of mass surveillance is in breach of the EU Charter;
  25. Recalls that Annex VI (letter from Robert S. Litt, ODNI) clarifies that under Presidential Policy Directive 28 (hereinafter ‘PPD-28’), bulk collection of personal data and communications of non-US persons is still permitted in six cases; points out that such bulk collection only has to be ‘as tailored as feasible’ and ‘reasonable’, which does not meet the stricter criteria of necessity and proportionality as laid down in the EU Charter;
  26. Deplores the fact that the EU-US Privacy Shield does not prohibit the collection of bulk data for law enforcement purposes;
  27. Stresses that in its judgment of 21 December 2016, the CJEU clarified that the EU Charter ‘must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime, provides for the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication’; points out that the bulk surveillance in the US therefore does not provide for an essentially equivalent level of the protection of personal data and communications;
  28. Is alarmed by the recent revelations about surveillance activities conducted by a US electronic communications service provider on all emails reaching its servers, upon request of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI, as late as 2015, i.e. one year after Presidential Policy Directive 28 was adopted and during the negotiation of the EU-US Privacy Shield; insists that the Commission seek full clarification from the US authorities and make the answers provided available to the Council, Parliament and national DPAs; sees this as a reason to strongly doubt the assurances brought by the ODNI; is aware that the EU-US Privacy Shield rests on PPD-28, which was issued by the President and can also be repealed by any future President without Congress’s consent;
  29. Expresses great concerns at the issuance of the ‘Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency under Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333’, approved by the Attorney General on 3 January 2017, allowing the NSA to share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrants, court orders or congressional authorisation with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Department of Homeland Security; calls on the Commission to immediately assess the compatibility of these new rules with the commitments made by the US authorities under the Privacy Shield, as well as their impact on the level of personal data protection in the United States;
  30. Deplores the fact that neither the Privacy Shield Principles nor the letters of the US administration providing clarifications and assurances demonstrate the existence of effective judicial redress rights for individuals in the EU whose personal data are transferred to a US organisation under the Privacy Shield Principles and further accessed and processed by US public authorities for law enforcement and public interest purposes, which were emphasised by the CJEU in its judgment of 6 October 2015 as the essence of the fundamental right in Article 47 of the EU Charter;
  31. Recalls its resolution of 26 May 2016 stating that the Ombudsperson mechanism set up by the US Department of State is not sufficiently independent and is not vested with sufficient effective powers to carry out its duties and provide effective redress to EU individuals; notes that according to the representations and assurances provided by the US Government the Office of the Ombudsperson is independent from the US intelligence services, free from any improper influence that could affect its function and moreover works together with other independent oversight bodies with effective powers of supervision over the US Intelligence Community; is generally concerned that an individual affected by a breach of the rules can apply only for information and for the data to be deleted and/or for a stop to further processing, but has no right to compensation;
  32. Regrets that the procedure of adoption of an adequacy decision does not provide for a formal consultation of relevant stakeholders such as companies, and in particular SMEs’ representation organisations;
  33. Regrets that the Commission followed the procedure for adoption of the Commission implementing decision in a practical manner that de facto has not enabled Parliament to exercise its right of scrutiny on the draft implementing act in an effective manner;
  34. Calls on the Commission to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the Privacy Shield will fully comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, to be applied as from 16 May 2018, and with the EU Charter;
  35. Calls on the Commission to ensure, in particular, that personal data that has been transferred to the US under the Privacy Shield can only be transferred to another third country if that transfer is compatible with the purpose for which the data was originally collected, and if the same rules of specific and targeted access for law enforcement apply in the third country;
  36. Calls on the Commission to monitor whether personal data which is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it had been originally collected is deleted, including by law enforcement agencies;
  37. Calls on the Commission to closely monitor whether the Privacy Shield allows for the DPAs to fully exercise all their powers, and if not, to identify the provisions that result in a hindrance to the DPAs’ exercise of powers;
  38. Calls on the Commission to conduct, during the first joint annual review, a thorough and in-depth examination of all the shortcomings and weaknesses referred to in this resolution and in its resolution of 26 May 2016 on transatlantic data flows, and those identified by the Article 29 Working Party, the EDPS and the stakeholders, and to demonstrate how they have been addressed so as to ensure compliance with the EU Charter and Union law, and to evaluate meticulously whether the mechanisms and safeguards indicated in the assurances and clarifications by the US administration are effective and feasible;
  39. Calls on the Commission to ensure that when conducting the joint annual review, all the members of the team have full and unrestricted access to all documents and premises necessary for the performance of their tasks, including elements allowing a proper evaluation of the necessity and proportionality of the collection and access to data transferred by public authorities, for either law enforcement or national security purposes;
  40. Stresses that all members of the joint review team must be ensured independence in the performance of their tasks and must be entitled to express their own dissenting opinions in the final report of the joint review, which will be public and annexed to the joint report;
  41. Calls on the Union DPAs to monitor the functioning of the EU-US Privacy Shield and to exercise their powers, including the suspension or definitive ban of personal data transfers to an organisation in the EU-US Privacy Shield if they consider that the fundamental rights to privacy and the protection of personal data of the Union’s data subjects are not ensured;
  42. Stresses that Parliament should have full access to any relevant document related to the joint annual review;
  43. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the governments and national parliaments of the Member States and the US Government and Congress.

NOTES
[1] OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
[2] OJ L 350, 30.12.2008, p. 60.
[3] OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1.
[4] OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89.
[5] ECLI:EU:C:2015:650.
[6] ECLI:EU:C:2016:970.
[7] OJ L 207, 1.8.2016, p. 1.
[8] OJ C 257, 15.7.2016, p. 8.
[9] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2016/wp238_en.pdf
[10] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/2016/20160726_wp29_wp_statement_eu_us_privacy_shield_en.pdf
[11] Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0233.

The  European Union’s  Policies  on  Counter-Terrorism. Relevance,  Coherence and Effectiveness

FULL TEXT (226 pages) ACCESSIBLE HERE 

(*)This research paper was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for  Citizens’ Rights and  Constitutional  Affairs. (January 2017)

AUTHORS :
(PwC) : Wim  WENSINK, Bas WARMENHOVEN, Roos HAASNOOT, Rob  WESSELINK, Dr  Bibi   VAN  GINKEL,
 International  Centre for  Counter-Terrorism (ICCT)  – The  Hague:  Stef WITTENDORP,  Dr  Christophe  PAULUSSEN, Dr  Wybe  DOUMA, Dr  Bérénice  BOUTIN,  Onur  GÜVEN, Thomas  RIJKEN, With   research   assistance   from:   Olivier  VAN   GEEL,   Max   GEELEN,   Geneviève   GIRARD,   Stefan HARRIGAN, Lenneke  HUISMAN,  Sheila  JACOBS  and  Caroline TOUSSAINT.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (emphasis are added)

Background and aim

The series of recent terrorist attacks, as well as the various foiled and failed terrorist plots on European soil, have more than ever reinforced the popular awareness of the vulnerabilities that go hand-in-hand with the open democracies in the European Union (EU). The fact that these attacks followed each other with short intervals, but mostly due to the fact that they often did not fit the profile and modus operandi of previous attacks, have significantly contributed to the difficulty for security agencies to signal the threats as they are materialising. The modi operandi used showed a diversity of targets chosen, were committed by a variety of actors including foreign fighter returnees, home-grown jihadist extremists, and lone actors, and were executed with a variety of weapons or explosives. Furthermore, another complicating factor is the trend towards the weaponisation of ordinary life  in  which  a truck or  a kitchen  knife already  fulfils the purpose.

Governments, policy-makers, and politicians in most EU Member States feel the pressure of the population who call for adequate responses to these threats. Similarly, the various actors of the EU on their own accord, or the European Council driven by (some) Member States, have stressed the importance of effective responses to these increased threats, and have specifically underlined the importance of sharing of information and good cooperation. Very illustrating in this respect are the conclusions adopted during the European Council meeting of 15 December 2016, in which the European Council stressed the importance of the political agreement on the Counter-Terrorism Directive, emphasised the need to swiftly adopt the proposals on regulation of firearms and anti-money laundering, as well as the implementation of the new passenger name record (PNR) legislation.1 The European Council furthermore welcomed the agreement on the revised Schengen Borders Code, and stressed the importance of finding agreement on the Entry/Exit System and the European Travel   Information  and   Authorisation  System.2

Although the easy way to satisfy the call for action by the national populations seems to be to just take action for the sake of it, the responsibility lies with the relevant actors, in line with the objectives and principles of the EU Treaty and the values the EU represents 3, to actually assess the security situation, and implement, amend or suggest (new) policies that are adequate, legitimate, coherent and effective in the long run. It is with that objective in mind that this study, commissioned by the European Parliament, has made an assessment of the current policy architecture of the EU in combating terrorism, particularly looking into loopholes, gaps or overlap in policies in areas ranging from international and inter-agency cooperation, data exchange, external border security, access to firearms and explosives, limiting the financing of terrorist activities, criminalising terrorist behaviour and prevention of radicalisation. This study furthermore looks into the effectiveness of the implementation of  policies in Member States  and  the  legitimacy and coherence  of  the  policies.

Seven major policy themes were selected and addressed in depth by this study:

  • Measures and tools for operational cooperation and intelligence/law enforcement and judicial information exchange;
  • Data collection and database access and interoperability;
  • Measures to enhance external border security;
  • Measures to combat terrorist financing;
  • Measures to reduce terrorists’ access to weapons and explosives; . Criminal justice measures;
  • Measures to combat radicalisation and recruitment.

The research team has assessed the degree of implementation of EU counter-terrorism measures under these seven themes in a selection of seven Member States: Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Spain. This study sets out policy options for the future direction of EU counter-terrorism policy. The focus of policy options is on future threats and developments, and on developing creative yet feasible policy solutions.

Main findings Continue reading

The Mejiers Committee on the inter-parliamentary scrutiny of Europol

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON THE MEJIERS COMMITTE (*) PAGE  HERE

  1. Introducton

Article 88 TFEU provides for a unique form of scrutiny on the functioning of Europol. It lays down that the [regulations on Europol] shall also lay down the procedures for scrutiny of Europol’s activities by the European Parliament, together with national Parliaments.

Such a procedure is now laid down in Article 51 of the Europol Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/794), which provides for the establishment of a “specialized Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group (JPSG)”, which will play the central role in ensuring this scrutiny. The Europol Regulation shall apply from 1st of May 2017.

Article 51 of the Europol Regulation also closely relates to Protocol (1) of the Lisbon Treaty on the role of national parliaments in the EU. Article 9 of that protocol provides: “The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall together determine the organization and promotion of effective and regular inter-parliamentary cooperation within the Union.”

Article 51 (2) does not only lay down the basis for the political monitoring of Europol’s activities (the democratic perspective), but also stipulates that “in fulfilling its mission”, it should pay attention to the impact of the activities of Europol on the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons (the perspective of the rule of law).

The Meijers Committee takes the view that improving the inter-parliamentary scrutiny of Europol, with appropriate involvement of both the national and the European levels, will by itself enhance the attention being paid by Europol on the perspectives of democracy and the rule of law, and more in particular the fundamental rights protection. It will raise the alertness of Europol as concerns these perspectives.

Moreover, the scrutiny mechanism could pay specific attention to the fundamental rights protection within Europol. This is particularly important in view of the large amounts of – often sensitive – personal data processed by Europol and exchanged with national police authorities of Member States and also with authorities of third countries.

The implementation of Article 51 into practice is currently debated, e.g. in the inter-parliamentary committee of the European Parliament and national parliaments.1 As specified by Article 51 (1) of the Europol regulation, the organization and the rules of procedure of the JPSG shall be determined.

The Meijers Commitee wishes to engage in this debate and makes, in this note, recommendations on the organization and rules of procedure.

  1. Context

Continue reading

The time has come to complain about the EU Terrorism Directive

By Maryant Fernández Pérez

Nearly a year has passed since we told that you’d be now complaining about the Terrorism Directive. On 16 February, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will vote on the draft Terrorism Directive. EU policy-makers have meaningfully addressed only very few of the concerns that EDRi and other NGOs have raised since the beginning of the EU legislative process.

We worked hard during the elaboration of the Terrorism Directive at the EU level: we defended digital rights since the very beginning, providing policy-makers with expert input; we joined forces with other digital rights organisations; and raised our voice against key proposals together with NGOs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the Open Society Foundations (OSF), the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) and the Fundamental Rights European Experts (FREE) Group (see our joint statements here and here). As a result of the hard work and numerous exchanges with policy-makers, not everything in the Directive is bad for digital rights.

What’s good?

Unfortunately, not as much as we would like. However, there are still some positives. Several provisions that we had advocated for are part of the final text, for example an assurance, in principle, of being able to express radical, polemic or controversial views.

We managed to eliminate mandatory internet “blocking”, and some safeguards were introduced with regard to removing and blocking online content and limiting when the absurdly vague concept of unduly compelling a government can constitute a terrorist offence. We also killed some bad proposals that, for instance, tried to undermine encryption and the use of TOR.

What’s wrong?

From a digital rights perspective, there is a long list of bad elements that the European Commission, EU Member States* and the majority of the MEPs of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) have introduced and/or kept in the draft Terrorism Directive, including the following:

To sum up, it took a year and two months to conclude a legislative instrument that endangers the protection of our rights and freedoms. This compares badly with the time that it took the EU to conclude an instrument to protect fundamental rights, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (five years, and two more years until it enters into force). Obvious, depressing, conclusions can be drawn about the priorities that drove different parts of the EU decision-making process in both cases.

Therefore, we urge the European Parliament to vote against this Directive or at least vote in favour of some of the amendments proposed to improve some of the elements listed above.

What can you do?

You can raise awareness and contact your MEPs prior to the debate on 15 February (starting around 3pm CET) and the vote on the Directive on 16 February (around 12pm CET). After the vote, it will be the turn of your Member State to implement the Directive and give meaning to the ambiguous provisions of the Directive. If the Terrorism Directive is adopted, civil society should look closely how their national parliaments will implement it, so it will not lead to abusive provisions. Ultimately, yet again, we will have to rely on the courts to be the guardians of our civil liberties.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact us!

The Ever-expanding National Security State in Europe: the Case of Poland

by Luigi LIMONE (*)

One of the most alarming developments across the European Union is the effort by States to make it easier to invoke and prolong a “state of emergency” as a response to terrorism or the threats to violent attacks. Emergency measures, which are generally supposed to be temporary, have become embedded in ordinary criminal law. Parliaments across the European Union are adopting a number of coercive measures in fast-truck processes, leaving little time for consideration on their impact on human rights and civil liberties.

In compliance with international human rights law, exceptional measures should only be applied in genuinely exceptional circumstances and, as stated by Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), “in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”.

Nevertheless, phenomena such as the rise of nationalist parties, anti-refugee sentiment, stereotyping and discrimination against Muslims communities, intolerance for speech or other forms of expression, risk that this “emergency measures” will target certain people for reasons which have nothing to do with a genuine threat to national security or from terrorist-related acts.

Up to now, France is the only EU Member State to have formally declared a state of emergency on national security grounds for terrorism-related acts on the last couple of years. However, other Member States have passed laws in fast-track processes and engaged in operations in response to real or perceived security threats. A clear example comes from Austria and Hungary, which have recently invoked the threat of terrorism in the context of the refugee crisis with profoundly negative impact on the right to seek and enjoy asylum in Europe.

One of the countries which is currently attracting the attention of several NGOs working in the field of human rights protection is Poland. Several cases of human rights violations as well as dismantlement of the rule of law have been reported since the Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) party came to power in October 2015.

In June 2016, Poland enacted a new Counter-terrorism Law following a fast-track legislative process. This law consolidates sweeping powers in the hands of the Internal Security Agency (ISA) and, combined with other recent legislative amendments, it creates conditions for violations of the rights to liberty, privacy, fair trial, expression, peaceful assembly and non-discrimination.

The new Counter-terrorism Law gives a broad and vague definition of terrorism which paves the way for: a) the expansion of indiscriminate mass surveillance powers; b) the targeting of foreign nationals; c) the extension of pre-charge detention.

According to Amnesty International, such an ill-defined and imprecise definition allows for disproportionate interference with human rights as well as arbitrary application and abuse.

The UN Human Rights Committee recommended in October 2016 that a definition be adopted that “does not give the authorities excessive discretion or obstruct the exercise of rights”.

The Counter-terrorism law includes provision for the Director of the Internal Security Agency to order the immediate blocking of specific websites with no prior judicial authorization if he or she considers that a delay could result in “terrorist incident”. Such a provision compromises the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information.

Freedom of peaceful assembly is also under threat under the new Counter-terrorism Law.

The Law, in fact, establishes a terror alert system which, if it reaches the level of three or four, allows the authorities to ban assemblies and large-scale events in particular locations.

The lack of transparency in the operation of the alert system, together with the vague definition of terrorism, could result in violations of the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. As a result, the terror alert system could be used by the government as an excuse to ban peaceful public protests against its policy on a wide range of issues, including abortion or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) rights.

Foreign nationals in Poland are particular targets of the new Counter-terrorism Law. They can be subjected to a range of covert surveillance measures, including wire-tapping, monitoring of electronic communications and surveillance of telecommunication networks and devices without any judicial oversight for the first three months.

Such surveillance is permitted if there is a “fear” that a foreign national may be involved in terrorism-related activities. In addition, the Law does not provide procedural safeguards to ensure that anyone made aware of surveillance can challenge it and have access to an effective remedy against unlawful surveillance. It also impacts Polish citizens who communicate or live with foreigners under investigation.

Poland’s new Counter-terrorism Law also provides for 14 days of detention without charge of people suspected of “terrorist crimes”. Since such detention measures can be adopted on the basis of information obtained through the broad surveillance powers given to the executive, the suspects and their lawyer may be denied access to the evidence upon which the pre-charge detention is based. Given the fact that the new surveillance powers primarily target foreigners, such measures could discriminate against non-nationals and have a disproportionate impact on foreign individuals, their families and communities.

Furthermore, the situation in Poland appears very critical when it comes to criminal law and to protection from discrimination and hate crimes in particular. While the country has made some progress in addressing hate crimes against certain groups, it has left others entirely behind, thus creating a double system and a significant protection gap in law as well as in practice.

Polish criminal law provides for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes motivated by race, ethnicity, nationality, religion and political affiliation. However, it does not establish that age, disability, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation and social or economic status are grounds to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

As stated in a report published by Amnesty International in September 2015, members of ethnic minorities, refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants continue to experience discrimination and violence in practice. In addition, transgender and intersex people are not explicitly protected from discrimination on grounds of gender identity and expression, and protection on the grounds of disability and religion is limited as well.

The situation is particularly crucial with regard to discrimination motivated by gender identity as well as expression and sexual orientation. LGBTI people are not sufficiently protected, as demonstrated by the huge number of homophobic and transphobic hate crimes. As far as women and girls are concerned, they continue to face obstacles in accessing legal and safe abortion and frequent cases of sexual harassment and rape are still being reported.

The current legal framework governing abortion in Poland is one of the most restrictive in Europe with terminations legally permitted only when the life of the foetus is under threat, when there is a grave threat to the health of the mother and in the instance that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

A new bill proposing to further restrict sexual and reproductive rights was submitted to Parliament on 5 July 2016. The restrictive measure is intended to ban abortion in all circumstances except for when it is considered to be the only means available to save a woman’s life. It would also criminalize women and girls who are found to have obtained abortion as well as the people encouraging or assisting them to do so.

Following mass protests and women’s strikes, the bill has been eventually rejected but the government, supported by the Polish Catholic church, has announced that it is considering other restrictions, including a total ban of emergency contraception and of the morning after-pill in particular.

In conclusion, significant deterioration in several areas has been observed since the Law and Justice party’s assumption of power in October 2015. A total of 148 new laws and legislative amendments have been enacted since then, which have led to serious violation of several fundamental rights enshrined in international human rights treaties, including the right to life, health and freedom from torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment as well as the right to privacy, information, equality and non-discrimination.

(*) FREE Group Trainee

Sources:

– Dangerously Disproportionate: The Ever-expanding National Security State in Europe, by Amnesty International, 17 January 2017, Index number: EUR 01/5342/2017

– Poland: Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee – 118th session, 17 Oct.-04 Nov. 2016, Index number: EUR 37/4849/2016

– Poland: Dismantling Rule of Law?, Amnesty International Submission for the UN Universal Periodic Review – 27th Session of the Upr Working Group, April/May 2017,  EUR: 37/5069/2016

 

Foreign fighters’ helpers excluded from refugee status: the ECJ clarifies the law

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

What if a person claiming to be a refugee is an alleged terrorist, or at least giving assistance to alleged terrorists? Can they still claim to be a refugee – and if not, how should we define ‘terrorism’ for the purposes of rejecting their claim to be one? Today’s judgment of the EU Court of Justice in the Lounani case usefully clarifies some aspects of this controversial and legally complex issue, but inevitably leaves some difficult questions open.

Legal framework

The starting point for this issue is the wording of the UN Refugee Convention, known by the EU as the ‘Geneva Convention’, which contains an ‘exclusion’ clause in Article 1.F:

  1. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The UN rules (which all EU Member States have signed up to) have been transposed, but with variations, in the EU’s Qualification Directive, which applies to every Member State except Denmark. (Technically the UK and Ireland are bound only by the first version of this Directive, but the rules on exclusion haven’t changed).  Article 12(3) of that Directive reads as follows:

  1. A third-country national or a stateless person is excluded from being a refugee where there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) he or she has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) he or she has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his or her admission as a refugee, which means the time of issuing a residence permit based on the granting of refugee status; particularly cruel actions, even if committed with an allegedly political objective, may be classified as serious non-political crimes;

(c) he or she has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as set out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.

  1. Paragraph 2 applies to persons who incite or otherwise participate in the commission of the crimes or acts mentioned therein.

It can be seen that the EU rules differ from the UN rules to the extent that: they add some wording on the timing and nature of ‘serious non-political crimes’; they clarify the reference to acts contrary to UN ‘purposes and principles’; and they apply the exclusion to those who ‘incite or otherwise participate’ in all three categories of acts leading to exclusion.

Despite this attempt at clarification, there will always be issues of interpreting these rules. The EU Court has ruled on them once before, in its judgment in B and D, when it stated that first of all that the second and third exclusion clauses can apply to terrorist offences.  However, exclusion must be assessed in each individual case, meaning that membership of a group listed as ‘terrorist’ in EU foreign policy sanctions against terrorists does not automatically trigger the exclusion clause, although it is a ‘factor’ to consider. Participating in a terrorist group, as defined by EU criminal law on terrorism, does not automatically trigger the exclusion clause either. Instead, there must be direct involvement by the person concerned in such offences, as further explained by the Court. Furthermore, there is no additional ‘proportionality’ or ‘present danger’ test for exclusion. Finally, the exclusion clause is mandatory: ie Member States cannot assert a right to apply higher standards and give someone refugee status if they fall within the exclusion criteria.

The judgment

What does today’s judgment add? The person concerned was convicted of participating in a terrorist group, but not of carrying out any terrorist acts as such. So is such a conviction sufficient to trigger the exclusion clause?

The EU court ruled that it was. First of all, the preamble to the EU Directive referred to UN Resolutions on ‘financing, planning and inciting’ terrorism; so the third exclusion clause goes beyond terrorist acts as such. Secondly, the EU legislature had not intended to match the exclusion clause in asylum law with the narrower definition of terrorism in (current) EU criminal law legislation.

Next, the EU court ruled that following a later UN Security Council Resolution, assisting with recruitment, organisation or transport of ‘foreign fighters’ could also fall within the scope of the exclusion clause. So could ‘participation’ in such activities, pursuant to Article 12(3) of the EU Directive. It was relevant that the group in question was listed as terrorist by the UN Security Council, and particularly relevant that the person concerned had been convicted of terrorist offences in Belgium.

Comments

The Court’s judgment asserts a broad scope of the exclusion clause, meaning that a degree of support for ‘foreign fighters’ will also result in exclusion from refugee status. In doing so, it answers the claims of those who believe that many refugees are ‘jihadists’. Simply put, anyone who has been directly involved in terrorist acts (B and D) or in facilitating the activities of ‘foreign fighters’ (today’s judgment) is not entitled to refugee status. Although the judgment does not mention it, this aligns the interpretation of the exclusion clause to some extent with recent developments in criminal law, namely the 2015 Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on the prevention of terrorism, and the agreed revision of the EU’s anti-terrorism laws.

But the judgment cannot help leaving some difficult questions open. What if the asylum-seeker has not been convicted of terrorist offences anywhere, but there are allegations of such action? Since a conviction is particularly relevant to applying the exclusion clause, would a lack of such conviction conversely be particularly relevant in determining that the clause should not apply? Would that assessment be different if the person had been acquitted, or if an investigation or trial was pending? If the criminal law process was pending, should the asylum determination process be put on hold? What if the authorities had claimed to have information supplied from the security services, and were reluctant to bring criminal proceedings in order to preserve their sources and intelligence capability?

What if there is a criminal conviction for terrorism from another country – particularly in the asylum-seeker’s country of origin, which might define criticism of the government as ‘terrorism’? Similarly what about ‘provocation’ to terrorism, which might include ‘glorification’ of terrorist acts, according to the revised EU criminal law? Here the question is to what extent freedom of expression, not directly connected to violent acts, might justify a refusal of refugee status. Recent acts remind us that as far as criminal law is concerned, terrorist acts – and the climate of hatred that surrounds them – are not confined to Islamist extremists, but stem also from those who fanatically hate minority groups as well.