Category: 9. Internal security -police cooperation

Art.19 of the EU Charter (Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition). Interesting Conclusions of AG Yves BOT.

Original published here

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL Yves BOT delivered on 10 May 2016 (1)

Case C‑182/15 Aleksei Petruhhin

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia)) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the European Union — First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU — Request for the extradition to Russia of a national of one Member State present on the territory of another Member State — Refusal of a Member State to extradite its own nationals — Difference in treatment on the ground of nationality — Whether justified — Combating impunity — Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

  1. Extradition may be defined as an international mutual assistance enforcement procedure whereby one State asks another State to surrender to it a person on the territory of the latter State in order to be prosecuted and tried or, if he has already been convicted, in order to serve his sentence.
  2. The present case concerns an extradition request issued by the Russian Federation to the Republic of Latvia in relation to an Estonian national who had been arrested on the territory of the Republic of Latvia.
  3. In essence, the Court is asked to rule on whether the protection against extradition which Latvian nationals enjoy under national law and under a bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation must, under the rules of the FEU Treaty on citizenship of the Union, be extended to nationals of other Member States.
  4. A number of Member States, including the Republic of Latvia, recognised, in their national law and also in the international conventions to which they are parties, the principle that they refuse to extradite their nationals. When an extradition request is addressed to a Member State and that request concerns a citizen of the Union who is not a national of the requested Member State, such a principle establishes a difference in treatment between the nationals of that State and the nationals of the other Member States. I am of the view, however, that such a difference in treatment does not constitute discrimination on the ground of nationality contrary to the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU, provided that it is shown that those two categories of nationals are not in a comparable situation in the light of the objective of combating the impunity of persons suspected of having committed an offence in a third State.

I –  Legal framework

A –    EU law

  1. Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) entitled ‘Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition provides, in paragraph 2:

‘No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’

B –    Latvian law

  1. The Latvian Constitution provides in the third sentence of Article 98:

‘A citizen of Latvia may not be extradited to a foreign country, except in the cases provided for in international agreements ratified by the Saeima (Latvian Parliament) if by the extradition the basic human rights specified in the Constitution are not violated.’

  1. Under Article 4 of the Krimināllikums (criminal law, ‘the Latvian Criminal Law’):

‘1.      Latvian citizens, Latvian non-citizens [ (3)] and foreign nationals who have a permanent residence permit for Latvia shall be held liable, in Latvian territory and in accordance with the present Law, for an offence committed in the territory of another State or outside the territory of any State, irrespective of whether it is recognised as an offence and punishable in the place in which it was committed.…

  1. Foreign nationals who do not have a permanent residence permit for Latvia and who have committed serious or very serious offences in the territory of another State which have been directed against the interests of the Republic of Latvia or the interests of its inhabitants shall be held criminally liable in accordance with this Law irrespective of the laws of the State in whose territory the offence was committed if they have not been held criminally liable or faced criminal proceedings in application of the laws of the State in which the offence was committed.
  2. Foreign nationals who do not have a permanent residence permit for Latvia and who have committed a criminal offence in the territory of another State or outside any national territory shall, in the cases provided for in international agreements binding on the Republic of Latvia, be held liable in accordance with this Law irrespective of the laws of the State in whose territory the offence was committed if they have not been held criminally liable for such offence or faced criminal proceedings in respect of that offence in the territory of another State.’
  3. Chapter 66 of the Kriminālprocesa likums (code of criminal procedure, ‘the Latvian Code of Criminal Procedure’), entitled ‘Extradition of a person to a foreign State’, provides in Article 696(1) and (2):

‘(1)      A person who is present in the territory of the Republic of Latvia may be extradited for the purpose of criminal proceedings, trial, or the execution of a judgment, if a request has been received from a foreign State for the temporary detention or the extradition of that person and the facts are characterised as a criminal offence under Latvian law and the law of the foreign State.

(2)      A person may be extradited for the purpose of criminal proceedings or trial in respect of an offence the commission of which is punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of not less than one year or by a more severe penalty, unless an international treaty provides otherwise.’

  1. Article 697(2) of the Latvian Code of Criminal Procedure is worded as follows:

‘Extradition shall not be granted if:

(1)      the person concerned is a Latvian citizen;

(2)      the request for the extradition of the person concerned has been made with the aim of commencing criminal proceedings against him or punishing him on the ground of race, religious beliefs, nationality or political views, or if there are sufficient grounds for believing that his rights may be infringed on the abovementioned grounds;…

(7)      the person concerned may be tortured in the foreign State.’

  1. The Agreement of 3 February 1993 between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters provides, in articles 1 and 62:

‘Article 1: Legal protection

  1. As regards personal and economic rights, the nationals of one of the Contracting Parties present in the territory of the other Contracting Party shall enjoy in that territory the same legal protection as the nationals of the other Contracting Party.
  2. The nationals of one of the Contracting Parties shall be entitled to access freely and without hindrance the courts, the office of the Public Prosecutor and notarial offices … and other institutions of the other Contracting Party with competence for civil, family and criminal matters, they may bring proceedings, submit requests, lodge appeals and carry out other procedural acts before those bodies on the same terms as nationals of that other Contracting Party.…

Article 62: Refusal of extradition

  1. Extradition shall not be granted if:

(1)      the person whose extradition is requested is a national of the Contracting Party to which the request is addressed or if he has obtained refugee status in that State.…’

  1. The Agreement between the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Lithuania on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations, signed at Tallinn on 11 November 1992, provides in Article 1(1):

‘As regards personal and economic rights, the nationals of one of the Contracting Parties present in the territory of the other Contracting Party shall enjoy in that territory the same legal protection as the nationals of the other Contracting Party.’

II –  Facts of the main proceedings and questions for a preliminary ruling

  1. Mr Aleksei Petruhhin, an Estonian national, was made the subject of a priority Red Notice on Interpol’s website on 22 July 2010.
  2. Mr Petruhhin was arrested on 30 September 2014 in the town of Bauska (Latvia), then placed in provisional custody on 3 October 2014.
  3. On 21 October 2014, the Latvian authorities received an extradition request from the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Russian Federation. It is apparent from that request that criminal proceedings were initiated against Mr Petruhhin by decision of 9 February 2009 and that Mr Petruhhin ought to have been placed in custody as a security measure. According to that decision, Mr Petruhhin is accused of attempted large-scale drug-trafficking in criminal association. Under Russian law, that offence is punishable with a term of imprisonment of between 8 and 20 years.
  4. The Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Latvia authorised Mr Petruhhin’s extradition to Russia. However, on 4 December 2014 Mr Petruhhin filed an appeal against the extradition decision, on the ground that, under Article 1 of the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Lithuania on Judicial assistance and Judicial Relations, he enjoyed the same rights in Latvia as a Latvian national and that, consequently, the Republic of Latvia was required to protect him against unjustified extradition.
  5. The Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) points out that neither Latvian law nor any international agreement signed by the Republic of Latvia with, in particular, the Russian Federation and with the other Baltic countries restricts the extradition of an Estonian national to Russia. Under Article 62 of the Agreement of 3 February 1993 between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters, protection against such extradition is conferred only on Latvian nationals.
  6. The referring court observes, moreover, that although Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (4) authorises the Member States to surrender their own nationals, no consultation mechanism has been established between the Member States for obtaining the consent of the Member State of which a person is a national to the extradition of that person to a third State.
  7. According to the referring court, it follows from the foregoing considerations that the protection afforded by a Member State to its own nationals against extradition to a third State is effective only on the territory of that Member State. The referring court is of the view, however, that that is contrary to the essence of citizenship of the Union, that is to say, the right to equivalent protection. It emphasises that that situation creates uncertainty for citizens of the European Union as regards freedom of movement within the European Union.
  8. The referring court expresses the view that, under EU law, where there is a request for the extradition of a national of a Member State to a third State, the requested Member State should ensure the same level of protection for citizens of the Union as for its own nationals.
  9. Being uncertain, none the less, as to the interpretation to be given to EU law, the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court) decided on 26 March 2015, while annulling the detention of Mr Petruhhin, to stay proceedings and to submit the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘1.      Are the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of extradition of a citizen of any Member State of the European Union to a non-Member State under an extradition agreement concluded between a Member State and a third country, the same level of protection must be guaranteed as is guaranteed to a citizen of the Member States in question?

  1. In those circumstances, must the court of the Member State to which the request for extradition has been made apply the conditions for extradition of the Member State of which the person concerned is a citizen or that in which he has his habitual residence?
  2. In cases in which extradition must be carried out without taking into consideration the specific level of protection established for the citizens of the State to which the request for extradition has been made, must the Member State to which the request for extradition has been made verify compliance with the safeguards established in Article 19 of the Charter, that is, that no one may be extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? May such verification be limited to checking that the State requesting extradition is a party to the Convention against Torture or is it necessary to check the factual situation by taking into consideration the evaluation of that State carried out by the bodies of the Council of Europe?’

III –  My analysis

A –    Preliminary observations

  1. The possible application of Article 1(1) of the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Lithuania on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations for the purpose of resolving the main proceedings
  2. In his appeal against the decision of the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Latvia authorising his extradition, Mr Petruhhin relies, in particular, on Article 1(1) of the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Lithuania on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations. He claims, on the basis of that provision, that he should receive from the Republic of Latvia the same protection as that Member State affords its nationals in the event of criminal proceedings. It follows that that Member State is required to protect Mr Petruhhin against an unjustified extradition request and that he is entitled to expect that the Republic of Latvia will do its utmost to obtain evidence to establish his guilt or innocence. In his submission, however, it is apparent from the position adopted by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Latvia that nothing will be done to verify as much and as accurately as possible the offences which he is alleged to have committed on Russian territory.
  3. At the hearing, the Latvian Government was asked whether Article 1(1) of the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Lithuania on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations might be interpreted as conferring on Estonian and Lithuanian nationals the same protection against extradition as that enjoyed by Latvian nationals. The Latvian Government stated, in that regard, that thus far the Latvian case-law has not interpreted that provision as conferring additional guarantees on Estonian and Lithuanian nationals not to be extradited by the Republic of Latvia.
  4. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether it may find a solution to the main proceedings by interpreting Article 1(1) of the Agreement between the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Lithuania on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations. It is incumbent on that court, in particular, to consider whether the expression ‘personal rights’ in that provision covers the right to legal protection against extradition.
  5. Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling
  6. At the hearing, the Latvian Government revealed that Mr Petruhhin is no longer on its territory, but that, following the cancellation of his detention on 26 March 2015, he returned to Estonia. The Governments of the Member States which expressed their views at the hearing inferred that the present request for a preliminary ruling should be declared inadmissible.
  7. In that regard, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, the procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is an instrument for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the former provides the latter with the points of interpretation of EU law which they require in order to decide the disputes before them. (5)
  8. In the context of that cooperation, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, provided that the questions submitted concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. (6)
  9. It follows that questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its object, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. (7)
  10. Thus, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, it is clear from both the wording and the scheme of Article 267 TFEU that a national court or tribunal is not empowered to bring a matter before the Court by way of a request for a preliminary ruling unless a case is pending before it, in which it is called upon to give a decision which is capable of taking account of the preliminary ruling. (8)
  11. That is the position in the present case. The Latvian Government confirmed at the hearing that there is still a dispute pending before the referring court. Whatever the uncertainty as to Mr Petruhhin’s present whereabouts, the referring court must therefore adjudicate on the legality of the decision taken by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Latvia to extradite him. Under Article 707 of the Latvian Code of Criminal Procedure, the referring court may decide either that the Public Prosecutor’s decision must be upheld, or that it must be annulled and that the extradition must not be authorised, or that the extradition request must be further examined. From the aspect of the decision to be taken by the referring court, an answer from the Court to the questions submitted by the referring court is still wholly relevant. Just as in the case of a convicted person who absconds after being found guilty, such a decision may then be enforced at any time, if need be after Mr Petruhhin has been re-arrested on Latvian territory.
  12. In the light of those factors, I therefore consider that the present request for a preliminary ruling is admissible.

B –    First and second questions

  1. By its first and second questions, which should be examined together, the referring court asks the Court, in essence, to rule on whether the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national of one Member State who is on the territory of another Member State and who is the subject of an extradition request by a third State must benefit from the same rule as that which protects the nationals of that other Member State against extradition.
  2. It is appropriate first of all to ascertain whether Mr Petruhhin’s situation falls within the scope of EU law and, in particular, the provisions of the FEU Treaty on citizenship of the Union.
  3. All the Governments which have submitted observations to the Court, with the exception of the Government of the United Kingdom, claim that the rules on extradition, in a situation in which the European Union has not concluded an agreement on extradition with a third State, falls within the competence of the Member States and is therefore not covered by EU law.
  4. I do not share that view. On the contrary, I endorse the view position expressed by the Government of the United Kingdom at the hearing, namely that the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU are applicable since Mr Petruhhin exercised his right to freedom of movement or his right of residence under EU law and that he is therefore, in principle, entitled to be treated in the same way as nationals of the host Member State.
  5. It should be pointed out that, as an Estonian national, Mr Petruhhin has the status of a citizen of the Union pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 20(1) TFEU and may therefore rely, as against both his Member State of origin and the Member State to which he travels, on the rights attaching to such a status.
  6. As the Court has held on numerous occasions, the status of citizen of the Union is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy, within the scope ratione materiaeof the FEU Treaty, the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for in that regard. (9)
  7. As citizenship of the Union, established by Article 20 TFEU, is not intended to extend the material scope of the FEU Treaty to internal situations which have no link with EU law, (10) it is necessary to identify whether such links exist.
  8. On this point, the Governments of the Member States have reiterated, in the context of these proceedings, the classic position in this type of situation, namely that in order for the FEU Treaty rules on citizenship of the Union to be applicable the facts of the main proceedings must relate to a matter governed by EU law and that it is not sufficient that the citizen of the Union concerned has exercised his freedom of movement.
  9. However, it must be emphasised that it is settled case-law that the situations falling within the scope of EU law include those involving the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, in particular those involving the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, as conferred by Article 21 TFEU. (11) Thus, in matters falling within the competence of the Member States, a relevant link with EU law may consist in the exercise by a national of one Member State of his right to move and reside on the territory of another Member State. (12) Conversely, where the Court is faced with a situation in which the matter at issue falls within the competence of the Member State and, moreover, the person relying on EU law has not made use of his right to freedom of movement provided for in Article 21 TFEU, it will declare that it has no jurisdiction to rule on the request for a preliminary ruling before it. (13)
  10. It is common ground that Mr Petruhhin, who was arrested in Latvia, made use of his freedom to move and reside in another Member State, guaranteed by Article 21(1) TFEU.
  11. It should also be made clear that, in the absence of rules of EU law on the extradition of nationals of the Member States to Russia, (14) the Member States retain the power to adopt such rules and to conclude agreements on such extradition with the Russian Federation.
  12. However, the Member States are required to exercise that power in a manner consistent with EU law, and in particular with the provisions of the FEU Treaty on freedom to move and reside on the territory of the Member States, as conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU on every citizen of the Union. That constitutes the application, in matters related to extradition, of a consistent body of case-law to the effect that the Member States are required, in the exercise of their powers, to respect EU law and in particular the provisions of the FEU Treaty on freedom to move and reside on the territory of the European Union recognised to every citizen. (15)
  13. Thus, in areas falling within the powers of the Member States, where a particular situation has a sufficiently close link with EU law, which is the case of a citizen of the Union who has exercised his right to move and reside on the territory of the Member States, those States are required to justify, by objective reasons, a difference in treatment between their nationals and the nationals of the other Member States. (16)
  14. It is now appropriate to examine whether the rule that the Republic of Latvia does not extradite its own nationals constitutes discrimination on the ground of nationality, contrary to the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU.
  15. Mr Petruhhin was arrested in Latvia and held in custody there until 26 March 2015. An extradition request from the Prosecutor-General of the Russian Federation was received by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Latvia on 21 October 2014. It is therefore the provisions of Latvian law and those of the Agreement of 3 February 1993 between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters that are to be applied.
  16. In the context of the present case, the rule that Latvian nationals may not be extradited from Latvia to a third State is set out in the third sentence of Article 98 of the Latvian Constitution, Article 697(2)(1) of the Latvian Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 62(1)(1) of the Agreement of 3 February 1993 between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance and Judicial Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters.
  17. Since under that rule only Latvian nationals enjoy that protection against extradition, it follows that they are treated differently from nationals of other Member States who are on Latvian territory and whose extradition has been requested by a third State.
  18. As Mr Petruhhin exercised his freedom to move and reside on Latvian territory, as conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU, it is in the light of the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU that the compatibility of the rule that the Republic of Latvia does not extradite its own nationals to Russia with the principle prohibiting any discrimination on the ground of nationality must be examined.
  19. It is appropriate in that regard to bear in mind that it is settled case-law that the principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way. Such treatment may be justified only if it is based on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and is proportionate to the objective being legitimately pursued. (17)
  20. It is therefore necessary to compare, in a context such as that of the main proceedings, the situation of non-Latvian citizens of the Union residing in Latvia with that of Latvian nationals.
  21. The principle that a State does not extradite its own nationals is a traditional principle of extradition law. Its origins lie in the sovereignty of States over their nationals, the mutual obligations between a State and its nationals and the lack of confidence in the legal systems of other States. Thus, the grounds relied upon to justify that principle include, in particular, the State’s duty to protect its nationals from the application of a foreign legal system, of whose procedures and language they are ignorant and in the context of which it may be difficult for them to mount their defence. (18)
  22. When examined in the light of EU law and the equal treatment which it requires, the foundations of the principle of non-extradition of nationals seem relatively weak. The same applies to the duty of protection which a Member State should have towards its nationals. I do not see why such a duty should not be extended to the nationals of the other Member States. Article 20(2)(c) TFEU lends support to that view, moreover, in so far as it provides that citizens of the Union are to have ‘the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State’.
  23. The same also applies to the argument that the principle of non-extradition of nationals is based on the States’ distrust of foreign legal systems. It has been appositely observed on that point that ‘this distrust is no doubt one of the essential foundations of what fashions the way in which extradition is practised — and in particular refused — nowadays. But while it may constitute good reason for a State not to respond favourably to an extradition request, it does not readily explain why such a request would be refused only where it involves the extradition of a national, on the ground of his nationality. If distrust justifies a refusal to extradite, it justifies a refusal with respect to everyone and not just nationals. (19)
  24. Although the foundations of the rule that a State does not extradite its own nationals must therefore be treated with caution when they are evaluated in the light of the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality, there is, however, in my view, an objective reason to distinguish the situation of the nationals of the requested Member State and that of nationals of other Member States where extradition is requested by a third State.
  25. Thus, it is necessary to compare, in a context such as that of the main proceedings, the situation of non-Latvian citizens of the Union residing in Latvia with that of Latvian nationals by reference to the objective to which several Member States and the European Commission have drawn attention in the present proceedings, namely the objective of combating the impunity of persons suspected of having committed an offence. Such an objective is most certainly a legitimate objective in EU law. (20)
  26. I would, on that point, observe that extradition is a procedure which enables an offence to be prosecuted or a penalty enforced. In other words, it is a procedure whose intrinsic aim is to combat the impunity of a person who is present in a territory other than that in which an offence was committed. (21)
  27. In the light of such an objective, the situation of the two categories of citizens of the Union referred to above could be regarded as comparable only if both could be prosecuted in Latvia for offences committed in a third State.
  28. In other words, when examining of the comparability of the situations of nationals of the requested Member State and nationals of the other Member States, it is necessary to ascertain whether, in accordance with the maxim aut dedere aut judicare(either extradite or prosecute), Union citizens who were not extradited to a third State could be prosecuted in the requested Member State for offences committed in that third State. It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the traditional principle of international law on extradition that a requested State which refuses to extradite its nationals must be able to prosecute them is observed in the present case.
  29. Hugo Grotius defined the principle aut dedere aut punire(either extradite or punish) as follows: ‘when appealed to, a State should either punish the guilty person as he deserves, or it should entrust him to the discretion of the party making the appeal’. (22) The word ‘punish’ is now replaced by the word ‘prosecute’ as the second part of the alternative to extradition in order to take account of the presumption of innocence enjoyed by all those suspected of having committed an offence.
  30. The maxim aut dedere aut judicare is also expressed in many bilateral or multilateral conventions on extradition. (23) The obligation to extradite or prosecute is expressed, for example, in the European Convention on Extradition, signed in Paris on 13 December 1957. Article 6(1)(a) of that Convention thus provides that ‘a Contracting Party shall have the right to refuse extradition of its nationals’. Article 6(2) of that Convention completes that provision in so far as it provides that ‘if the requested Party does not extradite its national, it shall at the request of the requesting Party submit the case to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate’.
  31. As indicated in the United Nations Final Report of 2014, entitled ‘The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)’, those conventions are based on the mutual general commitment of the States Parties to surrender any person against whom the competent authorities of the requesting State have initiated proceedings or who is being sought for the purpose of executing a sentence or a security measure. There are a number of exceptions to that obligation to extradite, however, in particular where the person whose extradition is requested is a national of the requested State. In order to avoid impunity, those conventions impose the second part of the alternative on the requested State, namely the obligation to prosecute the offender if it refuses to extradite him. (24)
  32. Thus, under the obligation to extradite or to prosecute, if the requested State does not comply with an extradition request, it is required to prosecute (25) the suspected person in order to ensure the effectiveness of international co-operation between States and to ensure that he does not remain unpunished.
  33. It is precisely by reference to the latter element that, in the context of the present case, Latvian nationals and nationals of other Member States are not in a comparable situation.
  34. The risk of impunity of the person named in an extradition request may exist if the requested Member State has not made provision in its domestic law for jurisdiction allowing it to try a national of another Member State suspected of having committed an offence on the territory of a third State.
  35. In that regard, I would observe, as the Commission has done, that under Article 4(1) of the Latvian penal law, ‘Latvian citizens, Latvian non-citizens [ (26)] and foreign nationals who have a permanent residence permit for Latvia shall be held liable, in Latvian territory and in accordance with the present Law, for an offence committed in the territory of another State or outside the territory of any State, irrespective of whether it is recognised as an offence and punishable in the place in which it was committed’.
  36. It follows from that provision that Latvian nationals who have committed an offence in a third State may be prosecuted in Latvia. That is also the case for foreign nationals in possession of a permanent residence permit for Latvian territory.
  37. In the case of foreign nationals not in possession of such a permit, on the other hand, the exercise by the Latvian criminal courts of their jurisdiction in respect of offences committed on the territory of another State is limited, under Article 4(3) of the Latvian criminal law, to cases of ‘serious or very serious offences which have been directed against the interests of the Republic of Latvia or the interests of its inhabitants’.
  38. It therefore appears to follow from those provisions of the Latvian criminal law that a national of a Member State other than the Republic of Latvia, such as Mr Petruhhin, who, as the parties are agreed, does not have a permanent residence permit for Latvian territory, cannot be prosecuted in Latvia for an offence which he is suspected of having committed in Russia. It follows that, in the light of the objective of preventing the impunity of persons suspected of having committed an offence in a third State, that national is not in a situation comparable with that of Latvian nationals.
  39. Accordingly, the difference in treatment between non-Latvian citizens of the Union residing in Latvia and Latvian nationals does not constitute discrimination prohibited by the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU, in so far as it is justified by the objective of combating the impunity of persons suspected of having committed an offence in a third State.
  40. Consequently, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that they do not require that a national of a Member State present on the territory of another Member State who is the subject of an extradition request by a third State should benefit from the same rule as that which protects the nationals of that other Member State against extradition.

C –    Third question

  1. By its third question, the referring court asks the Court, in essence, to rule on whether a Member State which decides to extradite a citizen of the Union to a third State is required to verify the guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) of the Charter and on what form that verification must take.
  2. It is apparent from the file before the Court that that question seems to originate in Mr Petruhhin’s claim that he would be threatened with torture if he were extradited to Russia.
  3. According to Article 19(2) of the Charter, ‘no one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.
  4. The explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (27) state that Article 19(2) ‘incorporates the relevant case-law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding Article 3 of the [European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (28)]’. (29)
  5. Since the situation of a national of a Member State who, like Mr Petruhhin, has exercised his freedom to move and reside in the territory of another Member State, falls, as we have seen earlier, within the scope of EU law, I am of the view that Article 19(2) of the Charter may apply in such a situation.
  6. Thus, a court of a Member State which receives a request relating to the extradition of a national of another Member State who has exercised rights conferred by Article 21(1) TFEU is required to verify the guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) of the Charter.
  7. As to what form that verification must take, it is appropriate, in accordance with the explanations in respect of Article 19(2) of the charter, to refer to the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 3 of the ECHR.
  8. It follows from the consistent case-law of that Court that protection against the treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the ECHR is absolute, and that, accordingly, the extradition of a person by a Contracting State can raise problems under that provision and therefore engage the responsibility of the State in question under the ECHR, where there are serious grounds to believe that if the person is extradited to the requesting country, he would run the real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to that provision. (30) In such cases, Article 3 of the ECHR ‘implies an obligation not to remove the person in question to the said country, even if it is a non-Convention State’. (31) The European Court of Human Rights states that it ‘draws no distinction in terms of the legal basis for removal; it adopts the same approach in cases of both expulsion and extradition’. (32)
  9. When the European Court of Human Rights examines whether an applicant would run the real risk of being subjected to ill treatment in the third country of destination, it considers ‘both the general human rights situation in that country and the particular characteristics of the applicant. In a case where assurances have been provided by the receiving State, those assurances constitute a further relevant factor which the Court will consider’. (33) Beyond the general situation in the country of destination, the real risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the ECHR must therefore be assessed by reference to the individual circumstances of the person concerned.
  10. In order to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing the existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights assesses the issue in the light of all the material placed before it or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu. (34) As regards the general situation in a country, it has often attached importance to information in recent reports from independent international associations for the protection of human rights, such as Amnesty International or government sources. (35)
  11. In addition to that description of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and along the lines of that case-law, it is also appropriate to take note of what the Court recently held in its judgment of 5 April 2016 in Aranyosi and Căldăraru(C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198), in the context of the application of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.
  12. The Court held in that judgment, in particular, with regard to Article 4 of the Charter, that ‘in order to ensure respect for [that article] in the individual circumstances of the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority, when faced with evidence of the existence of [deficiencies which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people] that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated, is bound to determine whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are substantial grounds to believe that, following surrender of that person to the issuing Member State, he will run a real risk of being subject in that Member State to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of [that article]’. (36)
  13. To my mind, the methodology thus defined by the Court can be transposed to a situation in which, following a request for the extradition of a citizen of the Union issued by a third country, the judicial authority of the requested Member State ascertains whether the guarantees laid down in Article 19(2) of the Charter are respected.

IV –  Conclusion

  1. In the light of all of the foregoing consideration, I propose that the questions submitted by the Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court, Latvia) should be answered as follows:

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that they do not require that a national of a Member State present on the territory of another Member State who is the subject of an extradition request by a third State should benefit from the same rule as that which protects the nationals of that other Member State against extradition.

In order to ensure respect for Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the individual circumstances of the person who is the subject of an extradition request, the judicial authority of the requested Member State, when faced with evidence of the existence of deficiencies which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated, is bound to determine whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are substantial grounds to believe that, following his extradition to the requesting third State, that citizen of the Union will run a real risk of being subject in that State to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of that provision.

1 – Original language: French.

2 – ‘The Charter’.

3 –      When questioned at the hearing about the meaning of this expression, the Latvian Government explained that ‘Latvian non-citizens’ are former Soviet citizens who arrived in Latvia after that State gained independence. These citizens did not choose either Latvian nationality or Russian nationality and may become naturalised.

4 – OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1. Framework Decision as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009, L 81, p. 24).

5 – See, in particular, judgment of 6 October 2015 in Capoda Import-Export (C‑354/14, EU:C:2015:658, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

6 – See, in particular, judgment of 6 October 2015 in Capoda Import-Export (C‑354/14, EU:C:2015:658, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).

7 – See, in particular, judgment of 6 October 2015 in Capoda Import-Export (C‑354/14, EU:C:2015:658, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).

8 – See, in particular, order of 5 June 2014 in Antonio Gramsci Shipping and Others (C‑350/13, EU:C:2014:1516, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).

9 – See, in particular, judgment of 26 February 2015 in Martens (C‑359/13, EU:C:2015:118, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).

10 – See, in particular, judgment of 26 October 2006 in Tas-Hagen and Tas (C‑192/05, EU:C:2006:676, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

11 – See, in particular, judgments of 11 July 2002 in D’Hoop (C‑224/98, EU:C:2002:432, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited); of 16 December 2008 in Huber (C‑524/06, EU:C:2008:724, paragraph 71 and the case-law cited); of 4 October 2012 in Commissionv Austria (C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited); and of 26 February 2015 in Martens (C‑359/13, EU:C:2015:118, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

12 – See Iliopoulou, A., ‘Entrave et citoyenneté de l’Union’, L’entrave dans le droit du marché intérieur, Bruylant, Brussels, 2011, p. 191. According to the author, ‘no national rule can be excluded a priori from the classification as a barrier in the context of citizenship. The existence of a cross-border element is sufficient to bring the situation within the context of Community law and to trigger a review of compatibility with the requirements of the Treaty’ (p. 202). See also, on that point, the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Tas-Hagen and Tas (C‑192/05, EU:C:2006:223, points 25 to 43).

13 – See, in particular, order of 19 June 2014 in Teisseyre (C‑370/13, not published, EU:C:2014:2033, paragraphs 33 to 35).

14 – There is, on the other hand, an Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States (OJ 2003 L 181, p. 27) (see Council Decision 2009/820/CFSP of 23 October 2009 on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America and the Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America (OJ 2009 L 291, p. 40)).

15 – See, in particular, concerning national provisions on compensation for victims of assaults carried out on national territory, judgment of 2 February 1989 in Cowan (186/87, EU:C:1989:47, paragraph 19); regarding national rules on criminal matters and criminal procedure, judgment of 24 November 1998 in Bickel and Franz (C‑274/96, EU:C:1998:563, paragraph 17); on national rules governing a person’s surname, judgments of 2 October 2003 in Garcia Avello (C‑148/02, EU:C:2003:539, paragraph 25), and of 12 May 2011 in Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn (C‑391/09, EU:C:2011:291, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited); regarding an enforcement procedure for the recovery of debts, judgment of 29 April 2004 in Pusa (C‑224/02, EU:C:2004:273, point 22); as regards national rules on direct taxation, judgment of 12 July 2005 in Schempp (C‑403/03, EU:C:2005:446, paragraph 19); concerning national rules defining the persons entitled to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament, judgment of 12 September 2006 in Spain v United Kingdom (C‑145/04, EU:C:2006:543, paragraph 78); regarding the definition of the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality, judgment of 2 March 2010 in Rottmann (C‑135/08, EU:C:2010:104, paragraphs 39 and 41); as regards the Member States’ power to organise their social security schemes, judgments of 19 July 2012 in Reichel-Albert (C‑522/10, EU:C:2012:475, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited), and of 4 October 2012 in Commission vAustria (C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited); and, as regards the content of teaching and the organisation of the education systems of the Member States, judgment of 26 February 2015 in Martens (C‑359/13, EU:C:2015:118, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

16 – See Iliopoulou, A., op. cit. According to that author, ‘the right of citizenship of the Union obliges the right of national citizenship to justify itself, to demonstrate its relevance and its proportionality. The State must review in the light of European standards its relations not only with the Community “abroad” but also with its nationals’ (p. 196).

17 – See, in particular, judgment of 16 December 2008 in Huber (C‑524/06, EU:C:2008:724, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).

18 – See Deen-Racsmány, Z., and Blekxtoon, R., ‘The Decline of the Nationality Exception in European Extradition?’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, vol. 13/3, Koninklijke Brill NV, The Netherlands, 2005, p. 317.

19 – See Thouvenin, J.-M., ‘Le principe de non extradition des nationaux’, Droit international et nationalité, Colloque de Poitiers de la Société française pour le droit international, Pedone, Paris, 2012, p. 127, especially p. 133.

20 – That objective of combating impunity was taken into account by the Court, in particular, in its judgment of 27 May 2014 inSpasic (C‑129/14 PPU, EU:C:2014:586, paragraphs 58 and 72).

21 – See, in particular, Eur. Court HR, 4 September 2014, Trabelsi v. Belgium (CE:ECHR:2014:0904JUD000014010, § 117 and the case-law cited), where the European Court of Human Rights states that it ‘does not lose sight of the fundamental aid of extradition, which is to prevent fugitive offenders from evading justice, nor the beneficial purpose which it pursues for all States in a context where crime is taking on a larger international dimension’.

22 – See Grotius, H., De jure belli ac pacis, Book II, Chap. XXI, sect. IV. Le droit de la guerre et de la paix: French translation by Barbeyrac, J., Amsterdam, Pierre de Coud, 1724, vol. 1, p. 639, especially p. 640.

23 – See, for example, the multilateral conventions cited on page 14 of the United Nations Final Report 2014, entitled ‘The obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)’, namely the European Convention on Extradition, signed in Paris on 13 December 1957; the General Convention on Judicial Cooperation, signed in Tananarive on 12 September 1961; the Inter-American Convention on Extradition of 1981; the Economic Community of West African States Convention on Extradition, adopted in Abuha on 6 August 1994, and the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth.

24 – See p. 14 of the Final Report.

25 – Although the expression ‘obligation to prosecute’ is most often used, it would be more accurate to speak of an obligation to bring the matter before the authorities with the power to prosecute. Depending on the evidence, the fulfilment of that obligation may or may not lead to the initiation of a prosecution.

26 – As to the meaning of this expression, see footnote 3 of this Opinion.

27 – OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17.

28 – ‘The ECHR’.

29 – Reference is made to the judgments of the Eur. Court HR of 7 July 1989 in Soering v. United Kingdom (CE:ECHR:1989:0707JUD001403888) and of 17 December 1996 in Ahmed v. Austria (CE:ECHR:1996:1217JUD002596494).

30 – See, in particular, Eur. Court HR, 4 February 2005, Mamatkoulov and Askarov v. Turkey (CE:ECHR:2005:0204JUD004682799, § 67); 28 February 2008, Saadi v. Italy (CE:ECHR:2008:0228JUD003720106, § 125 and the case-law cited); and 4 September 2014, Trabelsi v. Belgium (CE:ECHR:2014:0904JUD000014010, § 116 and the case-law cited).

31 – Eur. Court HR, 4 September 2014, Trabelsi v. Belgium (CE:ECHR:2014:0904JUD000014010, § 116).

32 – Eur. Court HR, 4 September 2014, Trabelsi v. Belgium (CE:ECHR:2014:0904JUD000014010, § 116 and the case-law cited).

33 – See, in particular, Eur. Court HR, 17 January 2012, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom (CE:ECHR:2012:0117JUD000813909, § 187).

34 – See, in particular, Eur. Court HR, 30 October 1991, Vilvarajah and Others v. United Kingdom (CE:ECHR:1991:1030JUD001316387, § 107; 4 February 2005, Mamatkoulov and Askarov v. Turkey (CE:ECHR:2005:0204JUD004682799, § 69); and 28 February 2008 Saadi v. Italy (CE:ECHR:2008:0228JUD003720106, § 128 and the case-law cited).

35 – See, in particular, Eur. Court HR, 4 February 2005, Mamatkoulov and Askarov v. Turkey, (CE:ECHR:2005:0204JUD004682799, § 72), and 28 February 2008, Saadi v. Italy, (CE:ECHR:2008:0228JUD003720106, § 131 and the case-law cited).

36 – Judgment of 5 April 2016 in Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 94).

EU-US cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs – an overview

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESEARCH SERVICE (EPRS) SITE 

SUMMARY

The United States is the key partner of the European Union in the area of justice and home affairs (JHA), including in the fight against terrorism. While formal cooperation on JHA issues between the US and the EU goes back to the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda, it is since 2001 in particular that cooperation has intensified. Today, and for the period up until 2020, the key areas of transatlantic efforts in the JHA field are personal data protection, counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism, migration and border controls, tracing of firearms and explosives, money laundering and terrorism financing, cybercrime, drugs and information exchange.

Regular dialogues at all levels, extensive operational cooperation and a series of legal agreements demonstrate the development of the transatlantic partnership on JHA. Assessments state that cooperation on law enforcement and counter-terrorism has led to hundreds of successful joint operations each year, and many foiled terrorist plots. Nevertheless, important challenges remain, in particular in light of the revelations of US mass surveillance activities and the resultant growth in EU concerns about US standards for data privacy.

The European Parliament is making use of its extended powers in the JHA field, by urging a high level of data protection as well as effective and non-discriminatory means of redress for EU citizens in the US over improper use of their personal data.

EU-US cooperation on JHA issues

Background

Formal EU-US cooperation on justice and home affairs (JHA) started in 1995, on the basis of the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU-US Action Plan, and was significantly reinforced after the 9/11 attacks.1 In particular, cooperation on cross-border law enforcement and intelligence, including counter-terrorism, has been one of the EU’s key priorities since 2001; today the relationship with the USA is the EU’s most advanced in this area. In particular, EU-US cooperation has been focused on the fight against terrorism and transnational crime, law enforcement and information exchange for law enforcement, protection of personal data, border management, visa and migration policies, and cybersecurity and cybercrime.

The US has increasingly recognised the EU as an actor in its own right (rather than the Member States) in the JHA area. Regular high-level political and security dialogue, extensive contacts, inter-agency operational cooperation, as well as a series of legal agreements between the US and the EU are evidence of this recognition, and of the evolution of the transatlantic partnership on JHA matters. Nevertheless, despite the continued emphasis on shared values, significant challenges to cooperation remain due to the different EU and US approaches. The revelations of US mass surveillance programmes and intelligence collection in Europe have affected transatlantic trust, and intensified EU concerns about data privacy and information exchange on the other side of the Atlantic. Other tensions have arisen in respect of US detainee policies, differences in terrorist designation lists in the US and EU, as well as border control and security measures.

Political dialogue on JHA and operational cooperation

The political dialogue on justice and home affairs issues, including counter-terrorism, is the EU’s most advanced with any third country, considering the number and level of contacts and the extensive policy cooperation. These links between officials on both sides of the Atlantic have increased since 2001 and, today, EU-US meetings take place regularly at both ministerial and senior official level:

  • Biannual ministerial meetings on justice and home affairs;
  • Biannual JHA informal high-level meetings (normally at the start of each six-month EU Council presidency);
  • Biannual political dialogues on terrorism between the US State Department and the European External Action Service (EEAS); and between the Commission and the US Department of Justice;2
  • Biannual dialogue of legal advisers of the EU, Member States and the US State Department, on counter-terrorism and international law;
  • Steering committee on countering violent extremism (several times a year);
  • Dialogue on terrorist financing;
  • High-level policy dialogue on border and transport security;
  • EU-US Working Group on Cybercrime and Cybersecurity;
  • Expert-level dialogue on protection of critical infrastructure.

EU-US cooperation at operational level is also highly developed, and is now a daily event for internal security and intelligence agencies, judicial authorities, treasury and trade authorities, border security and transport authorities. Law enforcement agencies share data and intelligence, and conduct joint operations. For example, joint operations in the counter-terrorism area have been run against identified terrorist networks, including coordinated freezing of financial assets and the surveillance and disruption of their means of online communication. According to Europol, in 2014 alone, more than 600 international operations were initiated in cooperation with US federal agencies leading to many operational successes in various crime areas, including against ‘darknet’ marketplaces, large-scale violation of intellectual property rights, currency counter-feiting, cybercrime and organised crime groups involved in the distribution of child sexual exploitation material. Of a yearly average of 500 operations initiated in cooperation with the US, around 50 are considered high-impact operations.

The mutual exchange of liaison officers has also advanced inter-agency and operational cooperation: two Europol liaison officers are posted in Washington DC, while US liaison officers from 11 federal agencies are posted to Europol and a permanent liaison prosecutor works at Eurojust.

Priority areas

In October 2009, EU and US ministers adopted the Washington Statement on enhancing transatlantic cooperation in the Area of Justice, Freedom and Security, which set out the principles and main areas of EU-US cooperation, such as mobility, law enforcement, counter-terrorism, judicial cooperation, fundamental freedoms, resilience and international cooperation for the following five years. The EU and US intended to build on the progress achieved up to that point (on customs cooperation, extradition and mutual assistance, passenger name records (PNR), and operational arrangements) and also take into account the EU’s multiannual priorities in the Area of Freedom, Justice and Security under the Stockholm Programme, adopted a few months later.

In June 2015, the EU-US ministerial meeting on Justice and Home Affairs endorsed the Riga Statement which reconfirms the principles of the Washington Statement, and outlines new priority areas for transatlantic cooperation during the next five years (as well as a set of concrete actions for each area): personal data protection, counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism (CVE), migration and border control, tracing of firearms and explosives, money laundering and terrorism financing, cybercrime, drugs and information exchange. In recent years, the threats from foreign terrorist fighters and organised crime have climbed high on the transatlantic agenda, with measures such as border security, visas, and information exchange being discussed to address these threats. In addition, the current Dutch Council Presidency has set out its priorities in this area, namely migration and counter-terrorism, as well as a special focus on cybersecurity and cybercrime (as well as human trafficking, victims’ rights and cooperation on forensic science).

Counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism (CVE)

Since 2001, transatlantic cooperation in the fight against terrorism has intensified. A series of agreements aimed at increasing cooperation and information-sharing for the purpose of law enforcement, including countering terrorism (see section below), have been concluded between the US and the EU, in addition to the bilateral cooperation and arrangements in place between the US and individual Member States. Several joint Declarations and Statements on counter-terrorism have been issued over the years, including the 2010 Declaration on counter-terrorism, whereby the EU, its Member States and the US announced their resolve to combat international terrorism within the rule of law, and set out the main areas and tools for cooperation in this respect. A specific joint interest has emerged in radicalisation and countering violent extremism since 2008-2009, and this has intensified in recent years. The Steering Committee on CVE meets several times a year and discusses issues such as terrorist travel, countering terrorists’ online activities, challenging extremist narratives, deradicalisation programmes in prisons, and cooperation on CVE activities in third countries. Inter-agency cooperation in this area has also developed between Europol and the US Department for Homeland Security (DHS); the US also recently suggested placing US agents in Europol to work on counter-narratives in the online environment. Foreign terrorist fighters has become a priority issue for EU-US counter-terrorism cooperation,3 as well as addressing terrorist financing. Cooperation on border security, aviation security, intelligence and information-sharing between law enforcement agencies, and counter-radicalisation efforts have become interlinked issues in the EU and US fight against terrorism.

On the other hand, several problematic topics have affected transatlantic cooperation on counter-terrorism, including differences between EU and US designated terrorist lists, data protection, and the US practices of extraordinary rendition and secret detention facilities. In addition, there have been tensions related to the US visa-free travel arrangements (Visa Waiver Program) which are not applied uniformly to all EU citizens.

Personal data protection

Despite the adoption in 2009 of common personal data protection principles by the US and the EU, personal data privacy continues to be one of the most important challenges in transatlantic cooperation, both with regard to the information-sharing agreements for law enforcement purposes – such as the EU-US Agreement on Passenger Name Records (PNR) and the TFTP/SWIFT agreement – and to the frameworks for commercial data transfers from the EU to US. Many in the EU, including the European Parliament, have raised serious concerns with regard to the protection of personal data in the US, claiming violations of EU citizens’ basic rights. The 2013 Snowden revelations of mass surveillance activities in Europe by the US National Security Agency have reinforced EU demands for stronger levels of data protection in the US, as well as for non-discrimination for EU citizens with regard to the means of redress available in the US. In this context, restoring trust in the transatlantic relationship has been underpinned by the revision of existing agreements regulating data transfers and the negotiations of new ones, such as the Umbrella Agreement.

Migration and border security

The EU and US have concluded several agreements on customs cooperation, including mutual recognition of air and maritime cargo security regimes. The US DHS also signed in 2009 a working arrangement with Frontex, the EU’s agency for border management cooperation, covering areas including risk assessment, sharing of best practices, exchange of information, training, and joint operations.

As regards passenger travel, the issue of complete visa-free travel for EU citizens to the US has been one of the sticking points in transatlantic relations. The US Visa Waiver Program (VWP) is in place for 23 EU Member States, granting their citizens short-term visa-free travel to the US.4 The VWP has recently been modified out of security concerns arising from the foreign fighter threat, a decision that raised serious concerns in the EU. Moreover, on a bilateral level, the US has sent official requests to five EU Member States to start negotiations on ‘pre-clearance agreements’, under which US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers deployed at the departure airport in the EU would determine whether passengers and their baggage or goods headed to the US may be admitted into the country. Currently, (non-Schengen area member) Ireland is the only EU Member State that has pre-clearance facilities for passengers bound for the US, and these have been in place since 2009. While the UK reportedly welcomed the US request, other EU Member States such as Sweden and the Netherlands raised concerns, principally related to whether the Schengen rules would allow such facilities, and over fundamental rights.

Moreover, the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean has pushed migration and refugee issues higher up the transatlantic agenda. Cooperation on migration issues continues in the framework of the EU-US Platform on Migration and Refugee issues, launched in 2010. The Platform’s action plan includes priority areas such as return and reintegration, biometrics, resettlement, trafficking in human beings, migration management capacity-building and labour migration. More recently, the possibility of enhancing US political and operational support to the EU was analysed, including EU cooperation with the US military in the Mediterranean.

Cybersecurity and cybercrime

In the area of cybercrime and cybersecurity, EU-US cooperation started in 2010, when the parties also established the EU-US Working Group on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime (WGCC). The EU-US WGCC addresses four main areas: cyber incident management, private-public partnerships, including for critical infrastructure protection, the fight against cybercrime, and raising awareness on cybersecurity. In 2011, the first joint cyber exercise was held (Cyber Atlantic 2011), aimed at improving coordination and more accurately identifying vulnerabilities. In 2014, the EU-US Cyber Dialogue was put in place, expanding cooperation and with the aim of addressing cross-cutting cyber issues, international developments in this field and foreign-policy-related cyber issues.5 The EU and US also cooperate in the framework of Europol and Eurojust on fighting cybercrime; a particular area for transatlantic cooperation is the fight against sexual abuse online, including the fight against child sexual exploitation.

EU-US legal agreements

The EU and US have concluded a series of binding agreements, including on arrangements for information sharing, on extradition and mutual legal assistance (MLA), on passenger name records (PNR), on container security, and on sharing financial data for the purpose of the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP).6

Agreements in the field of police and judicial cooperation, and information sharing

Extradition and mutual legal assistance

In 2003, the EU and the US signed two treaties, on extradition and mutual legal assistance (MLA),7 which entered into force in 2010. The EU-wide extradition agreement with the US is considered to modernise the existing bilateral extradition agreements between the US and Member States. It streamlines exchange of information and documents, and sets rules for establishing the priority in cases of competing extradition requests. Under Article 13 of the extradition agreement, the US agreed not to impose/execute the death penalty on suspects extradited from the EU.

MLA agreements establish cooperation for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in judicial investigations, and assistance in obtaining evidence located in another country. This also entails requests by law enforcement authorities to assist each other in cross-border criminal investigations or proceedings. The US-EU MLA agreement covers issues such as identification of bank information (providing US authorities with access to European financial information in criminal investigations), setting up joint investigative teams, video-conferencing, expedited transmission of requests, assistance to administrative authorities, use limitations, confidentiality, and grounds for refusal. The EU-US agreement does not replace the bilateral US MLAs with EU Member States (bilateral agreements are in force with all Member States except Bulgaria and Croatia), but supplements them.

US agreements with Europol and Eurojust

In 2001 and 2002 two US-Europol agreements were concluded which allow for the sharing of strategic and personal information in law enforcement. The negotiation of the agreement on personal information was particularly difficult, due to EU insistence that the agreement reflect EU standards on the protection of rights and rule of law. A US-Eurojust cooperation agreement was concluded in 2006. This was followed in 2007 by an EU-US agreement on the security of classified information, which sets some common standards so as to facilitate the exchange of classified information.

In February 2015, two other agreements were signed between Europol and US Customs, relating to foreign terrorist fighters and illegal immigration, issues now high on the agenda for cooperation. The first agreement associates the US CBP to Europol’s Focal Point Travellers, which is a tool created in 2013 for the collection, analysis and sharing of information related to the recruitment and travel of foreign terrorist fighters. The second agreement (Focal Point Check Point) aims at enhancing transatlantic cooperation against illegal immigration, targeting in particular organised crime groups that facilitate such immigration.

Tracking terrorist financing: the SWIFT/TFTP agreement

In August 2010, the US-EU Agreement on sharing SWIFT banking data (or financial messaging data) for the purpose of the US Treasury Department’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) entered into force for a period of five years. In August 2015, the TFTP/SWIFT Agreement was automatically renewed for a period of one year.

Under the TFTP agreement, the US Treasury Department submits a reasoned request for specific financial and banking data to the SWIFT company (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) located in Belgium. A copy of the request is sent to Europol, which ensures the request conforms with the provisions of the agreement. If validated by Europol, SWIFT is bound to comply with the request and provide the data to the US. Article 9 of the TFTP Agreement obliges the US to share any information obtained in the framework of the TFTP deemed useful for the EU and its Member States in the prevention or investigation of terrorism-related activities. Under its Article 10, the EU Member States, Europol and Eurojust can request the US Treasury Department to search for specific information in the SWIFT data.8

Transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNR)

Following 9/11, the US adopted legislation requiring air carriers to give the US DHS access to passengers’ data prior to their flights’ departure, both leaving from and heading to the US. The EU and the US signed an agreement in 2004 to provide a legal basis for the transfer of PNR data from the EU to the US, which was later invalidated by the EU Court of Justice. A new PNR agreement was signed in 2007, but amid concerns about the protection of data and judicial redress for EU citizens in the US, the European Parliament postponed giving its consent to the agreement, eventually endorsing the opening of new negotiations with the US, launched in December 2010. This latest EU-US agreement on the use and transfer of PNR data to the US DHS ‘for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and transnational crime’9 entered into force in July 2012 for a period of seven years. In exchange, the agreement provides that the DHS will ensure an appropriate level of data security, and includes provisions on the protection of sensitive data, on retention periods, on transparency and individual access to PNR data, on correction and rectification requests, as well as (administrative) redress for individuals. The Commission considers the agreement to be a useful tool in fighting terrorism and transnational crime, while giving adequate safeguards for EU citizens’ PNR data.

Protection of personal data

Safe Harbour and the new EU-US Privacy Shield agreement

The purpose of the Safe Harbour Framework (2000) was to protect EU citizens’ data if transferred to the US by American companies; it included a self-certification mechanism whereby US companies indicated their compliance with the Framework’s principles on personal data. As a result, such companies were allowed to transfer data from EU Member States to servers based in the US. In October 2015, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) invalidated the Commission’s 2000 decision on the Safe Harbour arrangement which had recognised that the US ensured an adequate level of data protection, in accordance with European data protection legislation. The ECJ thus effectively ruled that the US failed this ‘adequacy test’.10

The replacement for Safe Harbour – the EU-US Privacy Shield – was agreed on 2 February 2016. The EU-US Privacy Shield will form the new framework for transatlantic data flows and will consist of a Commission decision finding that the new protections, which the US government has promised to put in place, are adequate for preserving the privacy of citizens who provide their data to US companies. The Commission points out that the US has given the EU, for the first time, binding assurances that access by public authorities for national security purposes will be subject to clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms, while EU citizens will benefit from judicial redress mechanisms in this area. The Commission has published the documents pertaining to the new arrangement and is awaiting the assessment of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. In the meantime, data transfers to the US should be based on alternative legal frameworks such as Standard Contractual Clauses and Binding Corporate Rules.

The EU-US ‘Umbrella Agreement’ on data exchanges for law enforcement

The EU-US ‘Umbrella Agreement‘ on data privacy and protection of data exchanged for the purpose of law enforcement was initialled in September 2015 (‘for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting criminal offences, including terrorism, in the framework of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’). Its negotiation began in March 2011. A condition for the agreement to be signed and formalised was the enactment by the US of the Judicial Redress Act (JRA), amending the 1974 US Privacy Act in response to EU demands for equal rights of access to civil remedies in the US for EU citizens concerning their personal data. The JRA was passed by the US Congress on 12 February 2016 and signed by the President on 24 February. This new legislation allows the US Department of Justice to designate foreign countries, or regional economic integration organisations, enabling their citizens to bring civil actions under the 1974 Privacy Act against certain US government agencies for the purpose of accessing, amending, or redressing unlawful disclosures of records transferred to the US in the framework of law enforcement. The JRA is also of relevance for the Privacy Shield agreement for data transfers for commercial purposes.

The Umbrella Agreement is intended to provide an overarching framework of rules governing transatlantic data exchange in the context of law enforcement investigations, and set high standards of personal data protection for future agreements in this field. However, the Umbrella Agreement will not provide a legal basis for actual transfers of data, which will still require the conclusion of specific agreements. To conclude the agreement, the Council has to adopt a decision on the basis of a Commission proposal and following the consent of the EP. However, the European Data Protection Supervisor proposed several changes to the text in a preliminary opinion on the Agreement. Furthermore, some Members of the European Parliament and the EP’s Legal Service have raised concerns about the agreement’s compatibility with primary EU law and fundamental rights.

Border controls and transport security

The EU-US air cargo security agreement

In June 2012, the Commission and the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) signed a mutual recognition agreement of each other’s air cargo security regimes. It is meant to speed up transatlantic shipments and reduce costs for US and European cargo shippers. EU-US cooperation to strengthen border controls and transport security also played an important role in getting other states to agree the 2010 International Civil Aviation Organization declaration on aviation security.

Maritime cargo security

The air cargo security agreement was preceded in May 2012 by the EU-US mutual recognition agreement on maritime cargo security, whereby the EU and US recognise their respective ‘trusted shippers’ programmes – the US Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the EU’s Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) regime – and aimed at speeding up customs procedures for cargo scanning.

Customs cooperation between the EU and US is based on a 1997 agreement and further expanded through a 2004 agreement, which calls, among other things, for the extension to EU ports of the US Container Security Initiative (under which US customs officials, located in foreign ports, help screen maritime cargo containers bound for the US for explosives or weapons of mass destruction). In 2011, a Joint Statement on Supply Chain Security was issued, whereby the EU and US pledged to increase transatlantic cooperation related to customs security. Tensions in this area have emerged however over US legislation that sets a five-year goal, beyond which all containers bound for the US would be scanned for nuclear devices, which the EU finds unrealistic and costly.

An assessment of transatlantic cooperation and remaining challenges

Since 2001, the EU has seen enhancing cooperation with the USA in the JHA area as a key priority, in particular on law enforcement and counter-terrorism. The US has also proactively increased its involvement and supported cooperation with the EU as an actor in its own right in this field. According to reports by the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator (in 2009 and 2011), there has been ‘no significant counter-terrorism investigation’ in Europe in which US support did not play a crucial role. Moreover, from the US point of view, law enforcement efforts that successfully averted and tracked terrorist plots were the result of enhanced border security, and advanced passenger information and PNR transfers.

In this context, through mutual learning that has influenced the practice of internal security on both sides of the Atlantic, a process of policy convergence has been observed by some experts. Some US initiatives and closer transatlantic cooperation seem to have influenced the EU (and also helped shape an EU interest in the field of counter-terrorism), visible for example in the proposals for an EU-wide agreement on exchanging PNR or the negotiation of such agreements with other third countries; similarly, US officials have recognised the role of the EU in informing some US policies (e.g. in ensuring redress for passengers’ complaints about airport screening). Conversely, other experts have pointed either to the ‘Americanisation’ of European policy or have argued that EU-US JHA cooperation has not been a relationship of equals, but mainly a ‘one-way street’ for providing the US with access to personal data and databases in the EU, without the US sharing its own databases.11

In general, important challenges remain for transatlantic cooperation, all the more complicated by the 2013 revelations of US mass surveillance activities and allegations of data collection in Europe, as well as due to major differences between the EU and US over strategies to counter the terrorist threat. Europeans have been concerned about American departure from the rule of law in its treatment of terrorist suspects, and pointed to major fundamental rights questions – in particular issues related to data protection and data privacy, posed by the operation of the information-sharing agreements concluded between the EU and the US (both the TFTP/SWIFT and PNR agreements have raised legal problems, including fair procedures, access to justice, fundamental rights, privacy and proportionality), as well as by US practices of extraordinary rendition and secret detention facilities overseas, and by US detainee policies.

Data privacy still constitutes the main bone of contention in the transatlantic relationship, due to different and seemingly irreconcilable legal systems and traditions in the EU and USA, but also stemming from their differing geostrategic positions. On this issue, some specialists argue that, despite having criticised the US for privileging security measures over adequate data privacy and data protection standards, the EU finds itself, paradoxically, in the process of adopting the same security-centred approach over privacy rights. For them, the EU would move closer to the US and would ‘shift … emphasis away from data privacy and toward protective anti-terrorist surveillance programmes’. Conversely, some American observers deplore the insistence of Europeans on protecting privacy, and underline that the intelligence gathered by the USA, using huge intelligence resources that Europeans could not expect to match, also defends Europeans. Data protection issues notwithstanding (including US complaints of cyber-cooperation with Europol being severely hindered by data protection concerns), at least as regards the transatlantic cyber-partnership, cooperation seems to be based on solid norms and converging objectives (fighting cybercrime, limiting malicious software and securing critical infrastructure, while promoting international standards for cyberspace).

In all areas, from counter-terrorism to border security and cybersecurity, the EU and the US seem still to be struggling to find the appropriate balance between strengthening security and facilitating legitimate transatlantic mobility and commerce.

Finally, a further difficulty stems from the EU institutional setting, with most actions in the field of the judiciary and police pertaining to the national level. In particular, most transatlantic counter-terrorism cooperation is assessed as still taking place at bilateral level, between the USA and European national authorities; moreover, US critics doubt the usefulness of cooperating with EU bodies given these good bilateral ties.

Evaluation of EU-US information-sharing agreements

TFTP/SWIFT: According to a report from the EU’s Counter-Terrorism Coordinator (November 2015), the EU-US TFTP has generated more than 14 500 intelligence leads since it came into force in 2010. In 2015, 7 514 intelligence leads of relevance were generated, 2 765 of which specifically related to foreign terrorist fighters. Four evaluations of the agreement have taken place and another was scheduled for late 2015. The reports from 2013 and 2014 underlined the value of the TFTP data, including data retained over several years, for counter-terrorism investigations both in the US and the EU. The reports give concrete examples of investigations using TFTP data, including the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, threats to the 2012 London Olympics, and the 2011 attacks in Norway by Anders Breivik. The TFTP agreement is considered an important tool, providing timely and reliable information on activities associated with suspected terrorist acts, although other experts insist that more information is necessary in order to assess the effectiveness of the TFTP. The joint reviews conclude that Europol and EU Member States are increasingly aware of profiting from TFTP data through the reciprocity clauses of the agreement. A September 2015 assessment of Europol’s implementation of the TFTP also noted the increase in information received since December 2012 and the growing number of requests related to foreign fighters. While the Commission welcomed in 2014 more transparency from US authorities in sharing information, the Treasury Department underlined the need for more feedback from EU and national authorities after the US provides TFTP data.

EU-US PNR: A first joint review of the agreement (Commission and US DHS) was carried out in July 2013 and the next joint review was to take place in July 2015. The first review concluded that the PNR agreement served the purpose of supporting the fight against terrorism and other transnational crimes in various ways. However, some improvements were still needed on the DHS side, including, to ‘ensure reciprocity and pro-actively share individual PNRs and analytical information flowing from PNR data with EU Member States and, where appropriate, with Europol and Eurojust’. Another review performed by the DHS in June 2015 mentions that almost all the recommendations of the 2013 joint review have been implemented, and underlines that between October 2014 and February 2015, the DHS liaison officer submitted 122 names of suspected terrorists to Europol.

EU-US MLA: The MLA is being reviewed after five years; the EU proposed to finalise the joint review by June 2016. Both sides agree that the MLA works well, similarly to the EU-US extradition agreement, but several improvements could be made. On the US side, concerns relate to being overburdened and to the necessity of sharing information more quickly; to tackle this, the US pledged to increase resources and staff in the MLA department. On the EU side, the main concerns related to delays in execution, as well as the necessity to improve electronic means of communication in the MLA context and access to electronic evidence.

European Parliament

Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the EP acts on a par with the Council in legislating in the fields of police and criminal cooperation. The Lisbon Treaty also increased the EP’s oversight of Europol (the EP together with the Council decides on regulations setting out Europol’s legal framework, while parliamentary scrutiny of Europol’s activities should be done by the EP together with national parliaments) and Eurojust. Importantly, the EP has to consent to international agreements concluded by the EU with third countries in this policy area. Parliament’s increasing oversight powers became evident when it voted down the TFTP/SWIFT agreement in February 2010, triggering new negotiations to take into account the EP’s concerns on data privacy and recommendations.12 Also in 2010, the EP postponed its vote on the 2007 EU-US PNR agreement until the Commission issued its global PNR strategy, after which the EP endorsed the opening of new negotiations with the US. The EP insisted however on a necessary and proportional exchange of data, not using PNR for data mining or profiling, and also expressed concerns about the period for retention of the data.

In light of the revelations of the US large-scale surveillance programmes, the EP adopted a resolution in March 2014 calling for the suspension of all data transfer agreements with the US (TFTP, PNR), the suspension of the Commission’s Safe Harbour Decision, as well as an in-depth assessment of the EU-US MLA and extradition agreements, and requesting the resumption of negotiations on the Umbrella Agreement, which should provide ‘effective and enforceable administrative and judicial remedies for all EU citizens in the US without any discrimination’ and a high level of protection of personal data, as a precondition for restoring trust in the transatlantic partnership. The EP also linked its consent to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement to ending US mass surveillance activities and to adequate data privacy rights for EU citizens. In October 2015, the EP adopted a follow-up resolution reiterating its call for the suspension of the TFTP agreement and urging the Commission to assess the legal implications of the Court of Justice ruling of 6 October 2015 in the Schrems case vis-à-vis any agreements with third countries allowing for the transfer of personal data, including the TFTP Agreement, all PNR agreements and the EU-US Umbrella Agreement.

Main references

U.S.-EU Cooperation against Terrorism, Archick K., Congressional Research Service, RS22030, 2 March 2016.

Endnotes

1.Historically, the US maintained important bilateral relations with European states on law enforcement and followed with interest the beginning of cooperation on criminal matters among European states with the purpose of fighting organised crime, drug trafficking and terrorism – e.g. the 1976 Trevi Group, which included working parties on terrorism and internal security. By the end of the 1980s, criminal law enforcement issues figured regularly on the agenda of meetings between the US, some EU Member States and the Commission, with the US recognising the added value of the progressive ‘Europeanisation’ of measures in this field. Counter-terrorism issues have been part of the transatlantic dialogue since 1986. See ‘External relations of the EU with the US in counter-terrorism’ in The Evolving EU Counter-Terrorism Framework, O’Neill M., 2012, pp. 164-188.
2   The EU and USA also cooperate within multilateral frameworks, such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), where they promote international cooperation on counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism, as well as offer assistance to third countries for capacity building in the justice and rule of law areas.
3   See also ‘Foreign fighters’ – Member States’ responses and EU action in an international context, Bakowski P., Puccio L., EPRS Briefing, March 2016.
4   Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania are the five EU Member States not yet included in the US VWP.
5   ‘La coopération transatlantique en matière de cybersécurité’, Joubert V., in Vers un partenariat transatlantique de l’Union européenne, Auvret-Finck, J. (Ed.), Larcier, 2015, pp. 271-288.
6   U.S.-EU Cooperation against Terrorism, Archick K., Congressional Research Service, RS22030, 1 December 2014.
7   Handbook on the practical application of the EU-U.S. Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition Agreements, Council of the EU, 8024/11, March 2011.
8   There are still calls for the establishment of a European TFTP programme, which the Commission had assessed in 2013 as very costly and not bringing significant added value to the current situation.
9   The PNR agreement is restricted to those transnational crimes punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more – as demanded by the European Parliament.
10   Court of Justice ruling of 6 October 2015 in the Schrems case (C-362/14). Essentially, the Court ruled that: i) the generalised transfer of data under the Safe Harbour scheme without determining the limitation of access of US public authorities to the data was ‘compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life’;
and ii) the lack of access to legal remedies for individuals concerning their personal data was in breach of their fundamental right to effective judicial protection. See also The CJEU’s Schrems ruling on the Safe Harbour Decision, Monteleone S., Puccio L., EPRS, October 2015.
11 Experts also point to US demands for access to criminal records across the EU, which they deem controversial.
12 Parliamentary oversight of counter-terrorism policies’, Oikarinen J., in Counter-terrorism: International law and practice, Salinas de Frías A. M., Samuel K., White N.D. (Eds.), Oxford, 2012, pp. 936-964.

Disclaimer and Copyright The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. © European Union, 2016.

 

The fight against terrorism in Europe What the EU does (not do) and what it should do (*)

FondazioneBasso

(*) This was the title of a discussion seminar organised by Fondazione Lelio e Lisli Basso on April 18, 2016, attended by leading criminal judicial cooperation experts as well as by Emilio DE CAPITANI, Executive Director of the FREE Group,at the end of which the following document was drafted, which we submit to the attention of all concerned and in particular those responsible for policyin this sector.

A true EU criminal justice area: proposals for discussion

The Lisbon Treaty has profoundly changed “criminal justice cooperation” in the European Union.First, it provides for the introduction of legislative harmonization measures in the spheres of substantive and procedural law, through directives to be approved by means of ordinary legislative procedures.This creates the necessary legal bases for the extension of Eurojustcompetences,well beyond its present remit,and the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, whose responsibilities would initially be limited to the prevention of fraud against the EU budget, but which later could be extended to other areas, first and foremost the fight against terrorism and organized crime.

These innovations were not so much due to the initiativeof enlightened lawmakers but rather decades of cooperation between judicial bodies of member countries (starting with Council of Europeconventions), the trialling of horizontal forms of joint work (from the European Judicial Network to the practical implementation of Eurojust), and the obvious fact that in a globalized world,crime – financial, organized and terrorist – knows no boundaries, especially in Europe, which has become a single economic area.

This evolution has been followed by major European legal experts, who have supported this long and continuously evolving process.

However, the innovations introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force more than six years ago, have remained largely unimplemented. After a first phase, between 2010 and 2012, positively characterized by the adoption of a number of important directives on the harmonization of a uniform set of minimum rights for the defence in criminal proceedings (the necessary prerequisites for building mutual trust among diverse systems and mutual recognition of decisions), legislative efforts seem to have run aground against the great difficulties of the Council, the inertia of the European Parliament and the substantial paralysis of Commission proposals. The only legislative measure of any importance came into force in 2014, the Directive on the European Investigation Order (EU Directive 2014/41 of 3 April 2014), the result of a proposal made by some Member States dating back to 2010,to be transposed, in the not too distant future, by May 2017.

Meanwhile the Commission’s proposals for a new directive on offenses against the Union’s financial interests (so-called PIF Directive) and regulations for the reform of Eurojust and for the introduction of a European Anti-Fraud Public Ministry have for years been lying on the Council’s table after extenuating negotiations and after undergoing a series of modifications that have greatly weakened the original scheme.

With regard to the anti-fraud prosecutor, the text currently under discussion, if approved, does not provide for a truly European public prosecutor’s office, ie a European judicial organ, but only what, in substance, is just another intergovernmental agency, something quite different from the common organ of investigation and prosecution envisioned in Article 86 of the Treaty. Also the proposal for a Eurojust Regulation (a timid rewriting of existing provisions rather than any real consideration of the new possibilities offered by article 85 of the TFEU), at present languishes in an apparent dead end. But what is most striking is that not even in the field of minimum criminal legislation for the protection of the Union’s financial interests, that is to say the defence of public assets that entirely belong to the Union and not to single member states, have we succeeded, in almost four years of negotiations, in reaching agreement in the Council and Parliament. The risk is that, at the end of the negotiations, we shall end up with a diluted version not only of the original 2012 proposal but also the 1995 Convention that the directive is meant to replace. This would represent the first time that a step back has been taken in the process of forming European criminal law and, to some extent, of European integration itself.

Another very serious matter is what appears to be the Council’s substantial closure towards any real discussions of major policy guidelines for the area of freedom, security and justice, with a view to drafting a general document that can replace the Stockholm Program, which expired in December 2014, a document which can continue the course set by the Tampere and Hague programs of 1999 and 2004 respectively. This document, expressly provided for in Article 68 TFEU, has, for nearly two decades, constituted “the” common agenda in this sector for both European and national institutions, something which can be used to set individual measures into a more general framework, and offer future prospects. Its absence seems to be a clear indication of the European Council’s failure to exercise the prerogatives assigned to it by the Treaty itself.

We believe we need to combat this inertia.

The recent dramatic events in France and Belgium have shown, though this was already more than clear, that serious forms of crime, and among them of course terrorism, take advantage of the freedom of movement between our countries. And it is common knowledge that the sort of terrorism we must fight today is structurally and operationally different from the forms that we have known up to now. It operates beyond national borders and beyond European confines, and to imagine that it can be defeated by national criminal policies is a dangerous illusion.

According to the good intentions that have been expressed on numerous occasions, European leaders are motivated by a desire to achieve a higher level of cooperation in criminal matters. However, fine words do not seem to be have been followed by facts.

What is primarily missing from discussions is a frank, empirical and objective assessment of the state of implementation and operation (and especially non-operation) of existing cooperation instruments. We often hear of the difficulties which have prevented effective, trustworthy and complete exchanges between authorities of different states as regards criminal reports and investigations. National authorities do not always cooperate effectively, as would be expected from the principle of mutual trust. Even the flow of information to Eurojust seems to be insufficient, in the eyes of many national authorities, and accompanied by reticence. We must put an end to these nationalistic jealousies. If a crime has transnational characteristics, an answer must be found at transnational level. This is particularly evident with regard to terrorism, and what is certain is that it will not be the introduction of barriers at borders or the presence of police on trains to stop terrorists.

We are asking for this verification to take place, with the support of the many judges and prosecutors that have already cooperated in good faith, and of the academies and universities that have greatly contributed to the development of a common culture.

Negotiations on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the PIF Directive are proceeding wearily and contradictorily, based, moreover, on texts that by no means reflect the proclaimed desire to establish a body that will give added value to investigations in this area. They must be finalised within a reasonable time so that the future Public Prosecutor can have effective and efficacious powers of investigation, overcoming neo-nationalist instincts and obstacles.

We believe that the Commission urgently needs to put forward a proposal for a new “facilitation” directive on fighting criminal activities, which, by taking advantage of situations of war and extreme poverty, speculate on migrants and refugees. There have been too many deaths in the Mediterranean and the Balkans. The absence of an effective policy to combat crimes constitutes a black hole in the Union’s policies.

An answer must be found to the annulment of the Directive on data retention by the Court of Justice, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd(C-293/12)of 8 April 2014, to which no response has so far been given. This has resulted in the absence of common rules, so that each country has returned their own national regulations, which are very different, creating uncertainty and confusion in requests for and exchanges of data.

We hope that the framework of European tools to halt the proceeds of criminal activity may finally be completed through the presentation of the Commission proposals on mutual recognition of confiscation orders, including those that are not conviction based.

The European Union must not give in to the temptation of emergency measures for criminal activities, which may lower the level of freedom and security of its citizens. It should instead focus on harmonization and cooperation, so as to raise the overall efficiency of the system while enhancing individual rights.

Contributing to the drafting of this paper were Ignazio Patrone, Lorenzo Salazar, Eugenio Selvaggi and AndreaVenegoni, judges with extensive experience at European level.

Goodbye, cruel world: visas for holidays after Brexit?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS (April 25, 2016)

by Steve Peers

Until yesterday, I have consistently argued that the prospect of British citizens being subject to visas for short-term visits to the EU after Brexit was highly remote. In fact, I even told off some ‘Remain’ supporters who suggested that this might happen. EU policy is consistently to waive short-term visa requirements for wealthy countries (like the USA, Canada and Japan) as long as those countries waived short-term visa requirements for all EU citizens in return. I couldn’t imagine that it was likely that anyone on the ‘Leave’ side would wish to advocate short-term visa requirements for EU citizens visiting the UK after Brexit, thus damaging the British tourist industry and leading to a reciprocal obligation for UK citizens to get visas for short visits to the EU.

Incredibly, I was wrong on this. Yesterday, Dominic Raab, a senior figure on the Leave side, suggested that the UK might want to introduce visas for EU citizens after Brexit, and accepted that UK citizens might be subject to visa requirements for visits to the remaining EU in turn. It can’t seriously now be suggested that it’s ‘scaremongering’ to consider that this might become UK policy after Brexit – unless there’s such a thing as ‘self-scaremongering’ by the Leave side.

Let’s be clear about this. The idea of short-term visa requirements after Brexit is utterly and profoundly stupid. It is by no means a necessary consequence of Brexit, and would cause the maximum possible damage to UK businesses and the ordinary lives of British citizens who seek to visit the EU after Brexit, with little or no security benefit in return.

Background: EU visa policy

As an EU Member State, the UK allows short-term entry to EU citizens without a visa, as well as longer-term free movement of people – although the latter issue is severable from short-term visas. The reverse is also true, of course: simplifying the leisure, family and business visits of millions of British citizens to the EU every year. While there is an earlier treaty from the Council of Europe (a body separate from the EU) which abolishes visa requirements between European states, the UK is not a party to that treaty – and presumably would not become one under Raab’s plans.

The EU has agreements on free movement of people with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, but it seems clear from official statements by the Leave side that the UK would not sign up to these after Brexit. But as I said, short-term visa waivers are a severable issue: the EU does have reciprocal short-term visa waiver treaties with a number of non-EU countries, as well as a unilateral policy of waiving short-term visa requirements for other wealthy countries who reciprocate. Therefore, all it would take for British citizens to retain the visa waiver for short-term visits to the EU after Brexit would be a British government policy not to impose short-term visa requirements on EU citizens, or a UK/EU treaty to this effect. This seemed highly likely – until Raab’s rant.

The EU decides visa policy as a bloc, so there is no possibility that the UK could do separate deals on short-term visas with individual EU countries. As an exception, Ireland (like the UK at present) has an opt-out from the EU’s visa policy, so the UK and Ireland could retain their separate Common Travel Area arrangements – if they wished to. It’s not clear if Raab also wants to impose visa requirements for Irish nationals (which might also then be reciprocated). If that happens, then border controls would have to be reimposed between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, as some on the Leave side have already called for (though others have taken a different view).

EU visas: the legal framework

The EU (apart from Ireland) has a standard short-term visa policy, which entails issuing ‘Schengen visas’ valid for all the Schengen states.  So in legal terms we know what the impact would be of the EU imposing visas on British citizens. The basic rules are set out in the EU visa code, although a few EU countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Croatia) don’t apply that code yet as they are not yet fully part of Schengen. While the Schengen system currently has many well-known problems as regards border control, this has not affected Schengen visa policy, and there is no reason why it would do.

To get a Schengen visa, the visa code requires an application at a consulate, although in practice the applications are often made through a private service provider. Applications can be made up to three months before the date of travel, or six months for multiple-entry visas. Applicants need to provide fingerprints, except for children under twelve and some other limited exceptions. They must also provide documents supporting the reason for their travel, obtain medical insurance and pay a fee of €60 per applicant, along with an extra fee if the applicant uses a private service provider. The fee is reduced to €35 for children between six and twelve, and waived for younger children, as well as pupils and teachers on study trips, researchers and representatives of NGOs. It may be waived in a small number of other cases; but it is always payable for tourist or business trips.

Most applications for Schengen visas are accepted, but applications are scrutinised for subsistence and intention to return, so it may be more likely that unemployed or low-waged British citizens find their visa applications refused. Any rejections will be registered in the EU’s Visa Information System for five years, which may make it less likely for a future application to be accepted. Usually a visa is valid for a period of three months over the next six months, but it is possible to get a multiple-entry visa (valid for several trips over a five year period) if there is a proven need to travel frequently. Visas can’t usually be obtained at the border, so British citizens would have to apply for a visa at least several days in advance to be sure of being able to travel. Without a visa, they would be denied boarding planes, trains or ferries, due to the EU law on carrier sanctions.

Back in 2014, the Commission proposed amendments to the EU visa code. They would, for instance, simplify the rules on getting multiple-entry visas, and allow for earlier applications. But such visas would still not be standard. Recently, both the Council and the European Parliament adopted their positions on this proposal, and so it will likely be agreed later this year. I’ve blogged separately on the main changes that the Commission proposed, as well as the chance to add rules on humanitarian visas, and on the specific proposals affecting UK citizens’ non-EU family members. But if the new code ultimately applies to all British citizens, its impact will be obviously be much greater.

The EU has signed some treaties on visa facilitation with non-EU countries. These treaties don’t waive the visa requirement, but they reduce the application fee and simplify the process. Of course they are reciprocal – the UK would have to cut the fees and simplify the process for EU citizens applying for short-term visas to visit the UK too.

Practical consequences: the unbearable madness of visa requirements

There’s no doubt that visa requirements reduce travel for tourism, business and other purposes. There are detailed estimates of the scale of the economic impact in a reportdrawn up for the Commission before it proposed the revised visa code. Think of it at the individual level: if there’s no visa facilitation treaty, a British couple with two teenagers would have to pay an extra €240 for a family holiday in the EU in visa application fees, with fees often paid to service providers on top. Even with a visa facilitation treaty like the one with Ukraine, the family would pay €70 in fees (€35/adult, under-18s exempt from fees), and again possibly service providers.

Raab argues that all this is justified on security grounds. Is it? First of all, the vast majority of terrorist (or other) offences in the UK are committed by British citizens. But some foreign visitors do commit crimes. How best to screen them out? The basic problem is that imposing a visa requirement doesn’t, in itself, increase our capacity to determine if a particular individual is likely to pose a threat. It simply, in effect, moves the decision on entry in time (to a date before arrival) and space (away from the border to a consulate – although individuals will still be checked at the border to ensure that there is a visa in their passport). The best way of knowing if a particular individual is a threat is by checking the available data.

That information is easy to find if the visa applicant has previously committed a crime in the UK, because in that case there ought to be a criminal record accompanied by an entry ban. But in this scenario, the entry ban information should in principle not only be available to consulates considering a visa application, but also to border guards deciding on entry at the border. So the visa requirement adds nothing. Nor does it add anything as far as EU citizens are concerned: the EU citizens’ Directive allows the UK to impose an entry ban on EU citizens who have committed serious crimes; and the UK can (and does) refuse entry to EU citizens at the border.

What if the visa applicant has committed a crime in another country? Whether people have to apply for a visa or are checked at the border, there is no general access to other countries’ criminal records. However, the UK does have access to some relevant dataas an EU Member State. Last year, it gained access to the Schengen Information System, which includes information on wanted persons, including some terrorist suspects. From 2012, the EU system for exchange of information on criminal recordswas set up (known as ECRIS: the European Criminal Records Information System), and the EU Commission recently reported that it had greatly improved the flow of information on this issue. The ECRIS law provides for criminal records to be exchanged more easily as regards a country’s own citizens (so we now have more information on UK citizens who have committed crimes abroad). Furthermore, the UK opted into the newly adopted EU law on passenger name records.

These laws don’t provide perfect security, of course. Not all terrorist suspects’ names appear in the Schengen Information System, for instance. The passenger name records law is likely to be challenged on human rights grounds, since it gathers information on all passengers, not just suspects. The criminal records law was unable to stop a tragic killing two years ago, because British police unfortunately did not ask another Member State about the killer’s criminal record (on the basis of a separate EU law) when they had the opportunity. As I suggested at the time, it would be desirable to provide for automatic circulation of the criminal records of EU citizens who have been convicted of very serious crimes, if they have been released from prison, so that they can be stopped and validly rejected from entry at the border.  The upcoming amendments to the Schengen Information System would be an opportunity to do this.

But how would Brexit, with or without a visa requirement, improve this situation? It would not give the UK any more access to EU databases, or to other Member States’ criminal records systems; indeed, it might mean less access. The EU has not extended ECRIS to any non-EU countries; the Schengen Information System has only been extended to those (like Norway and Switzerland) that are fully part of Schengen. The EU has some treaties on exchange of passenger name data with non-EU countries, but this policy is being challenged on data protection grounds in the EU court.

More broadly, the EU court has ruled in the Schrems case that personal data can only be transferred to non-EU countries that have data protection law ‘essentially equivalent’ to EU law. The UK would have to commit to continue applying a law very similar to EU law, or risk disruptions in the flow of personal data – affecting digital industries as well as exchange of data between law enforcement authorities. This restriction can’t easily be negotiated away, since the case law is based on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has the same legal effect as the Treaties. The UK’s compliance with the EU rules would almost certainly be challenged in practice: see by analogy the Davis and Watson case already pending before the EU court. Outside the EU, the effect of a ruling that the UK did not comply with the rules would be a potential disruption of the flows of personal data.

One final point. Let’s remind ourselves that the UK already allows nationals of over fiftynon-EU countries to visit for a short period without a visa. So obviously we have found a way to reconcile the possible security threat this might pose with the needs of the UK economy. Why should that be so difficult to do as regards EU countries after Brexit? The mere existence of that policy anyway creates a loophole: any EU citizen with the dual nationality of one of those non-EU states (or perhaps Ireland) would be able to visit the UK without a visa anyway. Or is the intention to require a visa for everyone?

Of course, this loophole would work the other way around too. As a dual citizen of the UK and Canada, I could still visit the EU visa-free on a Canadian passport. So could any other British people who are also citizens of a Member State, or a non-EU country on the EU visa whitelist. But many others (including my family, for instance) could not. Let’s conclude on the utter absurdity of this: a British citizen contemplating the use of a Canadian passport to visit the European Union. Is this really the vision of an open, liberal, global United Kingdom after Brexit that the Leave side want people to vote for on June 23rd?

The balance between criminal law and international humanitarian law in terrorism cases

Intervention at the 10th ECLAN Conference, 26 April 2016 in Brussels

by Vaios KOUTROULIS (*)

On April 8 2016, in Anderlecht, the Belgian police arrested five people linked to the 22nd March bombings in the airport and metro station of Brussels. Among them was Mohamed Abrini who has admitted that he was one of the three persons that were filmed by security cameras in the Brussels airport. Among the persons arrested was also Osama Kareym, who is suspected to have taken part in the bombing on the Brussels subway. Both are also linked to the 13 November Paris attacks.

Can these participants in the 22nd March bombings in the airport and metro station of Brussels be criminally persecuted for terrorist crimes before Belgian courts?

In principle, the answer seems to be a straightforward YES.
The object of my presentation is to show that the question is much more complicated than it may appear at first sight.
This complication stems from the Belgian Criminal Code.
Indeed, in the section relating to terrorist offences of the Belgian Criminal Code, the penultimate article (article 141bis) excludes from the scope of application of the section the activities of armed forces in times of armed conflict as defined and regulated by international humanitarian law (IHL).

The origin of this article, which is a saving clause, is the last preambular paragraph of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combatting terrorism which reads as follows:
“Actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict, which are governed by international humanitarian law within the meaning of these terms under that law, and, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, actions by the armed forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties are not governed by this Framework Decision”.

This provision is reflected in several international conventions relating to the prohibition of terrorist acts.[1] As it is clear from the text of this article, the scope of application of the terrorist offences is defined / determined by the rules of IHL. So, under Belgian criminal law, IHL and terrorist offences are mutually exclusive legal regimes. Thus, in order to correctly appreciate which acts may be criminally prosecuted under Belgian law as terrorist acts, we need to go through the definition of the relevant IHL concepts.

I will make three points with respect to this provision, and this rule of mutual exclusion.

  1. First, I will briefly discuss the IHL notions of “armed forces” and “armed conflict” in order to give a clearer idea of what is excluded from the definition of terrorist offence.
  2. Second, I will briefly discuss how the savings clause has been applied in Belgian case-law
  3. Third, I will explain the purpose, la raison d’être, of the clause and why it is important to maintain it.

A. What is not a terrorist offence?

Actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict, which are governed by international humanitarian law
Armed forces = both armed forces of a State, of an international organisation or of a non-State actor.

The argument is sometimes raised that the concept of “armed forces” should be limited only to State armed forces, in other words, that only activities by State armed forces are excluded from the scope of application of terrorist offences, while those of non-State actors are not. This interpretation is not supported by the text of the provision.

According to the ICRC, customary IHL defines armed forces as follows:
“The armed forces of a party to the conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates.” (rule 4, source art. 43 AP I)
Armed forces of a State are quite clear to identify = regular forces of States (membership regulated by domestic law; members of irregular groups belonging to a party to the conflict)

Armed forces of a rebel group, a non-State actor are more difficult to identify.
Again according to the ICRC, “In non-international armed conflict, organized armed groups constitute the armed forces of a non-State party to the conflict and consist only of individuals whose continuous combat function it is to take a direct part in hostilities.” (ICRC, Interpretative guidance on DPH, 2009)

  • Continuous combat function requires a lasting integration into an organised armed group acting as the armed force of a non-State party to an armed conflict;
  • Individuals whose function involves the preparation, execution, command of acts or operations amounting to direct participation in hostilities have a continuous combat function;
  • Individuals recruited, trained and equipped by a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities have a CCF;
  • Recruiters, trainers, financiers, propagandists may continuously contribute to the general war effort of a non-State party but are not members of the armed forces of the group, unless their activities amount to DPH[2].
  1. Armed conflict = both international and non-international

IAC: conflict between states or between a State and an intl org.
NIAC: conflict between State and rebel group or between two or more rebel groups.
Two conditions: intensity of hostilities[3] and organisation of the parties[4].

Another factor that may come into play in determining whether an armed conflict exists relates to the geographical scope of application of an armed conflict. This is interesting since there have been some very extensive interpretations relating to the geographical scope of application of armed conflict that have been suggested. I am referring to the concept of the “global war on terror” put forth by the United States. According to this view, an armed conflict against a terrorist group basically knows no boundaries and exists wherever the terrorist is found. This theory has been invoked by the United States in order to allow them to invoke IHL as a justification for drone strikes against terrorists around the world. However, the drawback of such an extensive reading of IHL is that is the armed conflict follows the terrorist, then any act committed by him/her anywhere in the world will be considered as committed in the context of an armed conflict and therefore will not be qualified as a terrorist offence…

B. How have the Belgian Courts applied the saving clause in art. 141bis?

The answer is simple: very restrictively.
The defendants’ lawyers have invoked the clause in some cases but Belgian Courts have been up to now very reluctant in applying it. This has resulted in some very problematic interpretations of IHL concepts, since in order for the judges to reject the clause, they have interpreted the notions of “armed forces” and “armed conflict” very restrictively.

Thus, for example, in a case concerning the death of a Belgian national in Iraq in the context of an attack against the US armed forces present in Iraqi territory[5]. The relevant period was from January 2004 to November 2005. The 2008 judgment by the first instance tribunal[6] considered that there was no armed conflict in Iraq during the period in question. This classification was clearly unsupported by the facts in question, since even the US recognised that they were involved in an armed conflict and a belligerent occupation at least for the first months of the relevant period.

Another example, in a more recent case, deals with Sharia4Belgium, a group founded in 2010 having played an active role in the departure of combatants in Syria in order to join armed groups Jahbat Al-Nusra and Majlis Shura Al Mujahidin (affiliated with Al-Qaeda).

In the First instance judgment, handed down in 2015[7], the Tribunal held that there was an armed conflict in Syria to which the groups in question was involved. It also clarified that the armed conflict did not extend to Belgium. The consequence of that was that, in any case, the saving clause could not be invoked for acts which took place in Belgium. However, turning to the notion of “armed forces” the Tribunal refused to recognise that the two groups in question are “armed forces” within the meaning of IHL. This goes against the classification of the UN Commission of Enquiry on Syria. It also goes against well-established IHL rules. Indeed, the Tribunal, in order to reject to the two groups their character as “armed forces” defines “armed forces” very restrictively and imposes the respect of many conditions for a group to be classified as an “armed force”, conditions which have no legal basis in IHL.[8]

C. Why does the saving clause exist and why should it be maintained?

The reason for the saving clause is the recognition of the specificity of IHL as the legal regime which is best adapted in dealing with situations of armed conflict.

The need to preserve this specificity.

Firstly, IHL has its own list of crimes (war crimes) => the fact that an act does not constitute a terrorist offence does not mean that it is not a crime under international and national law or that its authors will remain unpunished.
Terrorism as a method of warfare is prohibited under IHL, both in international and non-international conflicts (Art. 33 4th GC; art. 51§2 AP I; art. 4§2(d) and 13§2 AP II).
It is also a war crime (ICTR Statute; SCSL Statute).

Secondly, the difficulty in finding common ground with respect to a definition of terrorism in international law, entails the risk of abuse of the notion of terrorism. This risk is particularly high in situations of armed conflict, especially in NIACs since the government always considers that the rebels are terrorists.

NOTES

[1] 1997 International Convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings, art. 19§2:
“The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, and the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.”
2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, art. 4§2:
“The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law are not governed by this Convention, and the activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.”
2005 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, art. 26 §5:
“The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention, and the activities undertaken by military forces of a Party in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention. »
1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, art 12
“In so far as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of war victims or the Protocols Additional to those Conventions are applicable to a particular act of hostage-taking, and in so far as States parties to this Convention are bound under those conventions to prosecute or hand over the hostage-taker, the present Convention shall not apply to an act of hostage-taking committed in the course of armed conflicts as defined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Protocls thereto (including IACs of AP I)”
1999, International Convention for the suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, art. 2:

  1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out:

(…)
(b) Anyotheractintendedtocausedeathorseriousbodilyinjurytoacivilian,orto any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
[2] DPH condition – direct causation = one causal step between activity and the harm to the adversary:

  • although recruitment and training of personnel is crucial to the military capacity of a party to the conflict, the causal link with the harm inflicted on the adversary will generally remain indirect. Only where persons are specifically recruited and trained for the execution of a predetermined hostile act can such activities be regarded as an integral part of that act and thus as DPH.
  • General war effort and war sustaining activities (design, production, shipment of weapons, propaganda, financial support) are not DPH.
  • Purchase, smuggling of the components of an explosive device, assembly of the device, storage of the device are connected with the resulting harm but are not DPH; only planting and detonating the device are DPH.
  • General preparatory acts do not constitute DPH: purchase, roduction, smuggling, hiding of weapons, general recruitment and training of personnel, financial administrative or political support.

[3] For the intensity of the conflict, these factors include ‘the number, duration and intensity of individual confrontations; the type of weapons and other military equipment used; the number and calibre of munitions fired; the number of persons and type of forces partaking in the fighting; the number of casualties; the extent of material destruction; and the number of civilians fleeing combat zones. The involvement of the UN Security Council may also be a reflection of the intensity of a conflict’; ICTY, Haradinaj 2008 Trial Judgment, supra note 26, para. 49. For further references, see ICTY, Boškoski and Tarčulovski 2008 Trial Judgment, supra note 26, paras. 177-178.
[4] As to the organisation of the parties, relevant for dissident armed groups, the indicative factors identified by the ICTY, include ‘the existence of a command structure and disciplinary rules and mechanisms within the group; the existence of headquarters; the fact that the group controls a certain territory; the ability of the group to gain access to weapons, other military equipment, recruits and military training; its ability to plan, coordinate and carry out military operations, including troop movements and logistics; its ability to define a unified military strategy and use military tactics; and its ability to speak with one voice and negotiate and conclude agreements such as cease-fire or peace accords’; ICTY, Haradinaj 2008 Trial Judgment, supra note 26, para. 60. For further references, see ICTY, Boškoski and Tarčulovski 2008 Trial Judgment, supra note 26, paras. 199-203.
[5] Case of the “fillières iraquiennes”, Muriel Degauque.
[6] Tribunal correctionnel de Bruxelles, 10 janvier 2008.
[7] Tribunal correctionnel d’Anvers, 11 février 2015.
[8] Such as the obligation to respect rules of IHL.

Data retention and national law: whatever the CJEU rules, data retention may still survive!

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Matthew White, Ph.D candidate, Sheffield Hallam University

Should governments be able to retain data on everyone’s use of the Internet and their phones – because it might arguably aid the fight against terrorism and serious crime? This ‘data retention’ issue raises fundamental questions about the balance between privacy and security, at both national and EU level. Initially, in the electronic privacy (e-Privacy)Directive, EU legislation set out an option for Member States to adopt data retention rules, as a derogation from the normal rule of confidentiality of communications in that Directive. Subsequently, in 2006, at the urging of the UK government in particular, the EU went a step further. It adopted the Data Retention Directive (DRD), which requiredtelecom and Internet access providers to keep data on all use of the Internet and phones in case law enforcement authorities requested it.

However, on 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the latter Directive went too far. In its Digital Rights Ireland judgment (discussed here), that Court said that the EU’s Data Retention Directive (DRD) was invalid in light of a lack of compliance with the rights to privacy and data protection set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) (para 69 and 73). This left open an important question: what happens to national data retention laws? Can they also be challenged for breach of the EU Charter rights, on the grounds that they are linked to EU law (the derogation in the e-Privacy Directive)? If so, do the standards in the Digital Rights Ireland judgment apply by analogy?

Instead of addressing this matter urgently, the United Kingdom government sat on its hands for a while and then unprecedentedly rushed through the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA 2014). DRIPA 2014 was intended to be a reactionto the Digital Rights Ireland ruling, giving the UK as a matter of national law the power to retain data that had been struck down by the CJEU as a matter of EU law.

In 2015, Tom Watson (now the deputy leader of the UK Labour Party), David Davis (a Conservative party backbencher) and others challenged s.1 of DRIPA 2014 arguing that the powers to obligate data retention on public telecommunication operators set out in that section of DRIPA did not sufficiently reflect what the CJEU ruled in Digital Rights Ireland. Although that CJEU ruling only applied to EU legislation, they argued that it also applied by analogy to national legislation on data retention, since such legislation fell within the scope of the option to retain communications data set out in the derogation in the e-Privacy Directive, and so was linked to EU law (and therefore covered by the Charter). Even though the e-Privacy Directive only related to publicly available electronic communications services (Article 3(1)), it is submitted that any extension of the definition of public telecommunications operator would fall within the Data Protection Directive, and thus the CFR would still apply. The High Court (HC) ruled in the claimants’ favour inDavis where an order was made for s.1 of DRIPA to be disapplied by the 31st of March 2016, insofar as it is incompatible with Digital Rights Ireland (para 122). This was in the hopes that it would give Parliament sufficient time to come up with a CFR compliant data retention law (para 121).

The government appealed to the Court of Appeal (CoA) which took a radically different approach maintaining that ‘the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland was not laying down definitive mandatory requirements in relation to retained communications data’ (para 106). But for the sake of caution, the CoA made a preliminary reference to the CJEU asking:

(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down mandatory requirements of EU law with which the national legislation of Member States must comply?

(2) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to expand the effect of Articles 7 and/or 8, EU Charter beyond the effect of Article 8 ECHR as established in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR?

The CoA was not the only national court to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU on matters regarding data retention and the reach of Digital Rights Ireland. On the 4th May 2015, the Force was with Kammarrätten i Stockholm when it asked the CJEU:

Is a general obligation to retain traffic data covering all persons, all means of electronic communication and all traffic data without any distinctions, limitations or exceptions for the purpose of combating crime (as described [below under points 1-6]) compatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC [the electronic privacy Directive], 1 taking account of Articles 7, 8 and 15(1) of the Charter?

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, may the retention nevertheless be permitted where:

access by the national authorities to the retained data is determined as [described below under paragraphs 7-24], and

security requirements are regulated as [described below under paragraphs 26-31],

and all relevant data are to be retained for six months, calculated as from the day the communication is ended, and subsequently deleted as [described below under paragraphs 25]?

The way in which the first question in Davis and Watson is asked doesn’t specify whether the general obligation applies to every service provider under the state’s jurisdiction or specific service providers to retain what they individually process. The assumption is the former as ‘all means of electronic communication and all traffic data without any distinctions’ implies a catch all to the relevant services. The Home Secretary (and indeed the government) may argue that if the CJEU rules in the negative (note that Article 15(1) of the e-Privacy Directive only applies to publically available electronic communications services, thus the justification for retaining data from other services would have to be found in the Data Protection Directive (DPD)) it would mostly have affected cl.78 of theInvestigatory Powers Bill (IPB) (currently before Parliament) which would grant the Secretary of State the power to issue retention notices on a telecommunications or any number of operators to retain for e.g. any or all data for 12 if the power in cl.1 of the draft Communications Data Bill (dCDB) had been replicated. The dCDB was a legislative measure introduced in 2012 to allow public authorities to keep up to date with the sophistication of e-Crime. Clause 1 maintained that:

1 Power to ensure or facilitate availability of data

(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) ensure that communications data is available to be obtained from telecommunications operators by relevant public authorities in accordance with Part 2, or

(b) otherwise facilitate the availability of communications data to be so obtained from telecommunications operators.

(2) An order under this section may, in particular—

(a) provide for—

(i) the obtaining (whether by collection, generation or otherwise) by telecommunications operators of communications data,

(ii) the processing, retention or destruction by such operators of data so obtained or other data held by such operators.

This measure was, however abandoned because the Liberal Democrats (in the then Coalition Government) did not approve of the far reaching nature of the proposal. In regards to cl.1, it clearly was a general power, as no distinction was made on who the obligation to retain may fall upon, and thus it is submitted that this power is analogous to the power which is the subject of the question being asked of the CJEU. Clause 78(1) of the IPB on the other hand, makes the distinction that a data retention notice may require a telecommunications operator to retain relevant communications data. Though there are two possible conflicts, the first, based on the assumption that the CJEU rules in the negative (to the first question) is cl.78(2)(a) and (b). This gives the Secretary of State the discretion to issue retention notices on any description of operators to retain all or any description of data. This could be considered a general obligation because it could affect all telecommunications operators and then be classed as a general obligation.

Secondly, retention ‘without distinction’ or ‘exceptions’ may be important when it comes to traffic data pertaining to journalists, politicians, and the medical and legal professions. But because the reference doesn’t mention specific service providers it cannot be said with certainty how much this would affect cl.78(1) which doesn’t make distinctions or exceptions.

When it comes to limitations on data retention, there is at least one, which was first noted in s.1(5) of DRIPA 2014 which allowed for a 12 month maximum period of retention. This is replicated in cl.78(3) and takes on board the recommendation of the Advocate General’s opinion (AG) in Digital Rights Ireland (para 149).

The President of the CJEU felt it was desirable to combine both preliminary references. The questions of access by both the Swedish and UK courts do not directly affect the cl.78 issuing of retention notices (insofar that it at least doesn’t involve everytelecommunications operator) nor does answering whether Article 7 and 8 was intended to extend beyond Article 8 ECHR jurisprudence. The security arrangements are dealt with by cl.81 (whether they are adequate is a different matter) and thus not relevant to the issuing of retention notices.

This, however, proceeds on the assumption that the CJEU will rule in the negative to the Swedish preliminary reference regarding retention being lawful for the purposes ofaccess, because if it does not, cl.78(2)(a) and (b) would not be affected at all. Moreover, the HC in Davis felt that the CJEU believed that data retention genuinely satisfied an objective of general interest (para 44) and that it must be understood to have held that a general retention regime is unlawful unless it is accompanied by an access regime which has sufficiently stringent safeguards to protect citizens’ rights set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the CFR (para 70). The CoA was silent on this matter, and therefore for the mean time, it is understood that if the CJEU rules in the positive, cl.78 would not be affected as a matter of EU law.

On the matter of whether the HC or the CoA had interpreted Digital Rights Irelandcorrectly, it is important to highlight one of the justifications for the CoA conclusions. It maintained in relation to mandatory requirements, that in the opinion of the AG, he was at least, not looking for the Directive to provide detailed regulation (para 77). Yet the CoA failed to mention his conclusions, where it was stated that the DRD was invalid as a result of the absence of sufficient regulation of the guarantees governing access to (by limiting access, if not solely to judicial authorities, at least to independent authorities, or, failing that, by making any request for access subject to review by the judicial authorities or independent authorities and it should have required a case-by-case examination of requests for access in order to limit the data provided to what is strictly necessary (para 127)) the data collected/retained and that the DRD should be suspended until the EU legislature adopts measures necessary to remedy the invalidity, but such measures must be adopted within a reasonable period (para 157-158). So at least in this regard the AG actually supports the stance of the HC (even though no reference was made on this point) and may therefore have had implications for the IPB (which does not require judicial or independent authorisation/review) in relation to access to communications data without a word from the CJEU.

Many thanks to Steve Peers for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

An EU Institutions “Google Maps”? Six years after Lisbon Treaty still the quest for a common compass …

by Emilio DE CAPITANI (*)

As a preliminary disclaimer I have to say that the following observations could not be seen as neutral as I have been an official of the European Parliament for 26 years and it is more than likely that I have been influenced by that experience. That having been said what I will say echoes a direct experience in some crucial moments of the interinstitutional relations since the negotiation of the Single European Act until the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. I have to say that the evolution of the role of the European Parliament has not been linear even if its importance was growing Treaty after Treaty but also with some stops, not to say, some regressions, as I am afraid it is happening, quite surprisingly, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

However it has been an exciting experience to see how that institution has been able to play a decisive role when the European Community first and the European Union later faced the challenge of establishing an internal market as a supranational area without borders, and, even more when after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Member States decided, albeit with several reservations to transform progressively the EU in a full-fledged supranational political organization.

It looks like ages ago, when, for instance, under the impulsion of Commissioner Sutherland the Institutions tried in ’87 to define their first common legislative programme.  Moreover it was an extraordinary experience to accompany the European Parliament in its transformation from a consultative body  to a co-legislator  by shaping its internal rules dealing with the legislative activity and the special relation with the Commission (also in the Comitology framework -see OJ L 197, 18.7.1987) or , after Maastricht when the first modus vivendi on codecision procedures was agreed.

The EU Freedom security and Justice area at the core of Member States and EU Institutions relations  

But probably the most interesting experience also from an interinstitutional perspective  has been when, before the entry into force of the Amsterdam treaty I had the chance to lead the secretariat of the Civil liberties Committee (LIBE) which was (and still is) in charge of almost all the freedom security and justice related policies. At that time LIBE was also the Committee in direct relation with the EU Member States notably when they played their role as initiators of EU legislation (which is still the case for judicial cooperation in criminal matters).

From 99 until 2009 (at the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty) the legislative dialogue between the Member States meeting in the Coreper II, the various Council Presidencies  and LIBE was intense and fruitful notably in the domains already covered by the codecision procedure such as borders, migration and asylum as well as domains giving specific expression (to use a CJEU definition) to fundamental rights such as anti-discrimination measures, transparency and data protection.

To prove the seriousness of the relation between the EP and the Council reference can be made to the fact that it was LIBE who started in 2001 the practice of the so called “first reading agreements” in legislative procedures. It is more than unfortunate that since then this practice of informal trilogues has been progressively developed following the Council internal practice of closed doors by transforming legislative negotiations which should by definition be transparent it in a sort of Bermude’s triangle. I can only hope that the Court of Justice will draw to an end this practice which threatens the implementation of the democratic principle in the EU as well as the right to access foreseen by the Treaties and the European Charter.

Before entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty LIBE committee was also consulted on legislation dealing with judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters and it as more than clear that the Council wanted to maintain a full control and responsibility of these domain so that the only possibility for LIBE to influence the content of the EU legislation in third pillar was by indirect means through it codecision powers on community legislation which was complementary to third pillar measure (see the case of EU legislation on irregular migration,..). When this was not possible and the EP was convinced that the Council or Commission measure was infringing the Treaty or threatening its constitutional prerogatives the European Parliament also brought to the Court the Council and/or the Commission.

In this perspective of reaching an objective by indirect means a pivotal role was played by the legislation on protection of personal data where the European Parliament was co-legislator since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty. As, according to the Treaties (and now the Charter) protection of personal data requires an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of a measure taken also in the security domain the LIBE committee took this occasion to assess also the content and the proportionality of EU security related policies such as the infamous PNR agreement with the US. We all know that the EU will also have soon its own “EU-PNR” which have now been agreed with the EP as co-legislator also in the judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters. Someone will think that this 13 years long saga is now drawing to an end. I am not sure. I will advise him to wait at least the incoming CJEU Opinion on the EU-Canada PNR agreement and maybe the first judicial cases on the new EU rules ..

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and of the Charter of fundamental rights the EP did no more need to use transversal tactics to reach the objectives he was searching before. Judicial and police cooperation was finally ordinary competence to be dealt with qualified majority and fall in the co-decision procedure. Moreover the Charter emphasis on the rights of the individual in all the EU policies and notably in  the freedom security and justice area was paving the way to what LIBE was asking for since its creation in 1992.

After Lisbon still need of a legal “Google Maps” ?

What is paradoxical is what happened at interinstitutional level after the entry into force of  that Treaty and of the Charter. The EU institutions have not all moved at the same pace towards the new constitutional legal framework order and this is a source of growing misunderstanding between them and ultimately of confusing messages for the EU citizens (what can explain why many of them are turning their back to the EU construction) .

If there was a Legal “Google Maps” I  would say that now the only institution which is strongly rooted in Lisbon is, no surprise, the CJEU (even if sometime it is also taken by the nostalgia of the previous world..).

Let me quote some statements in the CJEU in Opinion 2/13 where it is written that : “the founding treaties of the EU, unlike ordinary international treaties, established a new legal order, possessing its own institutions, for the benefit of which the Member States thereof have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only those States but also their nationals… …These essential characteristics of EU law have given rise to a structured network of principles, rules and mutually interdependent legal relations linking the EU and its Member States, and its Member States with each other, which are now engaged, as is recalled in the second paragraph of Article 1 TEU, in a ‘process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’…

This legal structure is based on the fundamental premise that each Member State shares with all the other Member States, and recognises that they share with it, a set of common values on which the EU is founded, as stated in Article 2 TEU. That premise implies and justifies the existence of mutual trust between the Member States that those values will be recognised and, therefore, that the law of the EU that implements them will be respected. Also at the heart of that legal structure are the fundamental rights recognised by the Charter (which, under Article 6(1) TEU, has the same legal value as the Treaties), respect for those rights being a condition of the lawfulness of EU acts, so that measures incompatible with those rights are not acceptable in the EU

The autonomy enjoyed by EU law in relation to the laws of the Member States and in relation to international law requires that the interpretation of those fundamental rights be ensured within the framework of the structure and objectives of the EU… As regards the structure of the EU, it must be emphasised that not only are the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU required to respect the Charter but so too are the Member States when they are implementing EU law.

The pursuit of the EU’s objectives, as set out in Article 3 TEU, is entrusted to a series of fundamental provisions, such as those providing for the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons, citizenship of the Union, the area of freedom, security and justice, and competition policy. Those provisions, which are part of the framework of a system that is specific to the EU, are structured in such a way as to contribute — each within its specific field and with its own particular characteristics — to the implementation of the process of integration that is the raison d’être of the EU itself. Similarly, the Member States are obliged, by reason, inter alia, of the principle of sincere cooperation set out in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU, to ensure, in their respective territories, the application of and respect for EU law. In addition, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU, the Member States are to take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the EU “

Are these ambitious concepts also shared by Member States or the Council or in our Google Maps is still trapped in the Maastricht interpillars games (with some Member States even dreaming to go back in the pre-Schengen era)?  The experience of the last six years and of notably of the last year on the Migration Border and Asylum Crisis shows that several Member States are going backward to the old good time  and do not change the former legal situation notably in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

The fact that even today

  • there is no real Internal Security Strategy adopted with the support of the European Parliament and in full knowledge of national Parliament (and this notwithstanding the art. 70 and 71 of the Treaty on functioning of the European Union requires a close parliamentary oversight of these policies);
  • that the “threats” EU impacting on the EU citizens are defined, measured and assessed only at bureaucratic level at national and european level within EU Agencies (such as EUROPOL, FRONTEX and EUROJUST ) whose oversight is almost virtual
  • that sharing security related information between EU MS is still mostly on voluntary basis
  • that the so called “policy cycle” bringing together (on a voluntary basis) the MS administrations is still managed without a credible connection with judicial authorities at EU and national level.

All this shows that notwithstanding 40 years of engagement (since Trevi in 1975) Member States are still far from sharing their experience and implement the principle of solidarity in the old latin meaning where faced to a common problem everyone is responsible “in solidum” with all the others.

As an EU citizen I am appalled to see that even after more than one year of successive terrorists attacks the EU has not yet decided:

  • to build an EU Anti-terrorism Enquiry Commission (as the US did decided immediately after 9/11)
  • to strengthen the powers of EUROJUST in terrorist domain (as required also by the 2005 decision) in preparation of a future EPPO competence as already foreseen by the Treaties. Let’s hope that the European Parliament unblock the Commission proposal and that the Ministers of interior will not wait for other terrorists attacks before launching a credible “lisbonised” Eurojust (if needed even in a form of enhanced cooperation) .

What is worrying is that instead of strengthening the operational cooperation on specific and measurable targets,  the measures adopted (or under negotiations) at EU level increase the impact on individual’s rights.

Under this perspective it is doubtful that the Council has followed its own internal guidelines according to which (quote) : The recent case law of the European Court of Justice[1] confirms that the Court will not satisfy itself with anything less than a strict assessment of the proportionality and necessity of measures that constitute serious restrictions to fundamental rights, however legitimate the objectives pursued by the EU legislature. It also indicates that such measures do not stand a serious chance of passing the legality test unless they are accompanied by adequate safeguards in order to ensure that any serious restriction of fundamental rights is circumscribed to what is strictly necessary and is decided in the framework of guarantees forming part of Union legislation instead of being left to the legislation of Member States.  (emphasis added)

And where may you find the European Parliament in a virtual Google Maps ?

I think that you can find it  somewhere between Amsterdam and Lisbon as it looks more and more afraid to take position in domains which are clearly still unfamiliar to him and on which relevant background informations are not shared by the Commission or by the Member States (not to speak of the EU agencies and of the so called COSI). I don’t see other explanation to the fact that more and more frequently the EP start working on the most sensitive issues only after the Member States have agreed on something. So, one sensible way to help the EP in playing its co-legislative role would be to share with a credible picture of what is happening on the ground in the different Member States. It is quite promising that when this happens (as now in the framework of the new Shengen evaluation mecahnism)  the EP and the national parliaments feel much more confident than before. But when the same will happen in the framework of the mutual evaluation of  judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters as it is required by the art. 70 of the TFEU ? In the absence of this regular exchange of information how can be improved the mutual recognition of national measures?

This is today a rhetorical question because the Member States with the support of the Commission, which, as we all know, is the “guardian of the Treaties have just decided that the mutual evaluation should remain on a voluntary basis as framed in a Joint Action dating back to the Maastricht era.

Will the EP accept to be continuously be side-lined? I am afraid it will and this not for a legal or institutional reasons but for the very trivial reason that its current political majority is in a way or another mirrored in the main Member States governments so that it may feel uneasy in dealing with issues which can place these Governments in a wrong perspective. As a citizen I can’t but blame this situation because I consider that a weak Parliament could not protect my rights and fullfill the objectives outlined in the EU Charter. Any way what the European and national parliaments don’t dare to do is more and more done by national judges (see the NS and ARANYOSI Jurisprudence as well as the recent ruling of the BVG on the European Arrest Warrant).

Again as Citizen I would prefer to be protected by a clearly defined law and not depend from the appreciation of a judge but this is apparently more and more what we have expect from the EU legislation as the envisaged Directive on terrorism I have cited above.

And the Commission ? In a virtual Google maps the Commission is in a sort of Neverland still trying to re-build its pre-Santer role by trying to become at the same time the Guardian  of the Treaty as well as the true Government of the EU. Has this strategy any chance to succeed ? Could the President of the Commission pretend to have also a support of the EU citizens in alternative to the EP itself because of the Spitzencandidat invented in the very last days before the EU elections ? I am not sure even if are now countless the family’s photo bringing together the Presidents of the EP, of the European Council and of the Commission.

What I notice instead is that executive functions also in the Freedom Security Justice Area are more and more transferred to European Agencies where the Member States come back on the driving seat by becoming some pre-federal entities (which are deemed to be INDEPENDENT both from the Commission and of the Parliament which can play a light oversight). This “agencification” trend notably in the freedom security and justice area can now be further developed thanks to the ESMA ruling and will probably progressively change the institutional balance.

The case of Frontex is to my understanding a proof of this. It is unfortunate that until now the Member States have not found the same courage for the EPPO notwhistanding the explicit provisions in  the Treaty. In this perspective the Better Law Making agreement by which the Commission is trying to harness the legislative policy cycle looks more like a tail which pretend to move a dog ….  But even when the Commission has to play its role faces some difficulties . Look at the draft Directive on terrorism which has been presented without a credible impact evaluation of the existing legislation nor of the new rules. Guess how could had been the text if it was not proposed by the same Vice President of the Commission in charge of the Better Law making and of the implementation of the EU Charter..

I can’t end my short intervention without making reference to a new “Quasi-EU” Institution more and more proactive within the freedom security and justice area. We can call it the “Head of State and of Governement Group” which has recently agreed with Turkey a so-called Deal. The EP and also some scholars have raised questions about the legal nature of such a deal. The provisional answers given until now even the President of the European Council is that it is binding but it is not a formal EU agreement. This remind me the famous Magritte painting showing a pipe but stating “this is not a pipe”. Following the same logic the next question is;

“Is this still an European Union or are we already looking at in the new season of Games of Thrones ?

(*) NOTA BENE : this is a transcripition of an intervention at the ECLAN Seminar on : The Needed Balances of EU Criminal Law: Past, Present and Future  (Brussels 25-26 April 2016)

NOTES

[1]             See Judgment of 8 April 2014, Cases C‑293/12 and C‑594/12,  Digital Rights Ireland (information note by the Council Legal Service in doc. 9009/14)

La sécurité digitale à l’heure des crises migratoire et terroriste, le noeud gordien de l’interconnexion des fichiers

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON CDRE SITE (20 AVRIL 2016)

par Pierre Berthelet, CDRE

La situation que connaît actuellement l’Union européenne n’aura échappé à personne. Qu’il s’agisse de la crise migratoire ou de la crise terroriste générée par les attentats à répétition en 2015 et en 2016, le remède préconisé par les États membres par la voix du Conseil et du Conseil européen, consiste à vouloir sécuriser davantage les frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne.

La protection renforcée de celles-ci constitue l’enjeu majeur de la lutte menée contre le phénomène terroriste, dont l’agenda converge désormais clairement avec la politique européenne en matière migratoire, comme l’atteste la communication de la Commission du 6 avril 2016 intitulée « des systèmes d’information plus forts et plus intelligents pour les frontières et la sécurité ». Le texte affirme à cet égard très clairement une « interconnexion dynamique » entre police, migration et gestion des frontières.

La crainte actuelle est, en particulier, le phénomène des combattants de l’État islamique venant d’Irak et de Syrie. L’organe de coordination antiterroriste belge, l’OCAM, a d’ailleurs souligné, le 19 avril 2016, un risque considérable d’attentat de la part de ces combattants, des Européens partis faire le Jihad au Moyen-Orient et rentrant aguerris (phénomène dit des « returnees »).

Nouveaux défis, mais anciennes solutions donc. L’observateur ne peut qu’avoir une impression de déjà-vu : les choix de ces derniers mois formulés par les chefs d’État et de gouvernement, inspirant les orientations contenues dans cette communication, ressemblent, à bien des égards, à ceux des Conseils européens de Laeken de 2001, de Séville de 2002 ou encore de Thessalonique 2003. À l’époque, l’Union était déjà confrontée aux problématiques du terrorisme et d’échouage de migrants sur les côtes européennes. Les agendas antiterroriste et migratoire se mêlaient alors autour de la sécurisation des frontières extérieures pour éviter toute intrusion possible d’agents d’Al-Quaïda dans l’UE, dissimulés dans les colonnes de migrants, jetant ainsi les fondations du projet des frontières électroniques (smart borders).

Anciennes solutions, mais nouveaux défis néanmoins. La communication du 6 avril 2016, accompagnée d’une proposition de règlement instituant le « Système Entrée-Sortie » (correspondant à une révision du précédent projet présenté en 2013, jugé trop onéreux par les États membres), marque un nouvel épisode dans la création des frontières électroniques européennes. Elle s’inscrit dans le contexte d’enjeux très actuels : la protection des frontières extérieures au prisme de la lutte antiterroriste a trait à deux problèmes distincts, celui des « combattants étrangers » (1) et celui de la fraude documentaire (2).

Dans le premier cas, il s’agit de contrôler les flux de voyageurs sortants pour empêcher ces « combattants étrangers » (foreign fighters), c’est-à-dire les jeunes Européens désireux de partir faire le Jihad au Moyen-Orient. Dans le deuxième cas, il s’agit de contrôler les flux de population, pour la plupart fuyant la guerre dans cette région. En réalité, ces deux problématiques se recoupent car la fraude documentaire concerne le contrôle des titre de voyage dont sont porteurs les flux de voyageurs, y compris les migrants irréguliers rassemblés dans les hotspots. Elle a trait aussi à l’identification des « combattants étrangers » franchissant les frontières Schengen avec de faux papiers. Les solutions apportées concernent, dans un cas comme dans l’autre, un meilleur déploiement des fichiers et une plus grande interconnexion de ceux-ci (3).

Analyser la manière dont l’Union s’efforce de répondre à ces deux problématiques distinctes mais sécantes est instructif. Cette réponse s’exprime de façon commune, le recours à la sécurité digitale, c’est-à-dire l’utilisation accrue des systèmes d’information et de communication et ce, en écho au phénomène de digitalisation de la vie sociale observable dans d’autres secteurs à l’ère du Big Data, tels que la santé digitale. Les problématiques secondaires, fraude documentaire et combattants étrangers, se trouvent au cœur de la résolution des crises migratoire et terroriste, elles-mêmes étroitement imbriquées. Il s’opère à ce propos un phénomène d’intrication immigration-terrorisme dans un contexte où s’échafaudent des capacités de gestion de crise horizontale, c’est-à-dire de polycrises.

L’interopérabilité des systèmes d’information devient alors un enjeu central, crucial même, car de son succès dépend la protection effective de l’Union. La sécurité digitale, expression archétypale dusolutionnisme technologique, constitue un nœud gordien au sens où le sort de lutte antiterroriste dépend de la réussite de l’interopérabilité des systèmes d’informations, qu’ils soient à finalité sécuritaire ou migratoire, l’une et l’autre apparaissant désormais mêlées.

1. Verrouiller les frontières pour résoudre le problème des combattants étrangers 

Continue reading “La sécurité digitale à l’heure des crises migratoire et terroriste, le noeud gordien de l’interconnexion des fichiers”

(Legislative Alert) : The EU Directive on Passenger Name Record (PNR)

DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/… OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of … on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data  for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (d) of Article 82(1) and point (a) of Article 87(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee[1],

After consulting the Committee of the Regions,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure[2],

Whereas:

(1)          On 6 November 2007 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for law enforcement purposes. However, upon entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the Commission proposal, which had not been adopted by the Council by that date, became obsolete. Continue reading “(Legislative Alert) : The EU Directive on Passenger Name Record (PNR)”

The Commission’s draft EU-US Privacy Shield adequacy decision: A Shield for Transatlantic Privacy or Nothing New under the Sun?

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS 

by Dr. Maria Tzanou (Lecturer in Law, Keele University)

On 6 October 2015, in its judgment in Schrems, the CJEU invalidated the Commission’s decision finding that the US ensured an adequate level of protection for the transfer of personal data under the Safe Harbour framework on the basis that US mass electronic surveillance violated the essence of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed in Article 7 EUCFR and the right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Article 47 EUCFR (for an analysis of the judgment, seehere).

On 2 February 2016, the Commission announced that a political agreement was reached on a new framework for transatlantic data flows, the EU-US Privacy Shield, which will replace the annulled Safe Harbour. On 29 February 2016, the Commission published a draft Privacy Shield adequacy decision followed by seven Annexes that contain the US government’s written commitments on the enforcement of the arrangement. The Annexes include the following assurances from the US:
Annex I, a letter from the International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce, which administers the programme, describing the commitments that it has made to ensure that the Privacy Shield operates effectively;
Annex II, the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework Principles;
Annex III, a letter from the US Department of State and accompanying memorandum describing the State Department’s commitment to establish a Privacy Shield Ombudsperson for submission of inquiries regarding the US’ intelligence practices;
Annex IV, a letter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) describing its enforcement of the Privacy Shield;
Annex V, a letter from the Department of Transportation describing its enforcement of the Privacy Shield;
Annex VI, a letter prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) regarding safeguards and limitations applicable to US national security authorities; and,
Annex VII, a letter prepared by the US Department of Justice regarding safeguards and limitations on US Government access for law enforcement and public interest purposes.

Similar to its predecessor, Privacy Shield is based on a system of self-certification by which US companies commit to a set of privacy principles. However, unlike Safe Harbour, the draft Privacy Shield decision includes a section on the ‘access and use of personal data transferred under the EU-US Privacy Shield by US public authorities’ (para 75). In this, the Commission concludes that ‘there are rules in place in the United States designed to limit any interference for national security purposes with the fundamental rights of the persons whose personal data are transferred from the Union to the US to what is strictly necessary to achieve the legitimate objective.’ This conclusion is based on the assurances provided by the Office of the Director of National Surveillance (ODNI) (Annex VI), the US Department of Justice (Annex VII) and the US Secretary of State (Annex III), which describe the current limitations, oversight and opportunities for judicial redress under the US surveillance programmes. In particular, the Commission employs four main arguments arising from these letters to reach its adequacy conclusion:

Firstly, US surveillance prioritises targeted collection of personal data, while bulk collection is limited to exceptional situations where targeted collection is not possible for technical or operational reasons (this captures the essence of the principles of necessity and proportionality, according to the Commission).

Secondly, US intelligence activities are subject to ‘extensive oversight from within the executive branch’ and to some extent from courts such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

Thirdly, three main avenues of redress are available under US law to EU data subjects depending on the complaint they want to raise: interference under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); unlawful, intentional access to personal data by government officials; and access to information under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Fourthly, a new mechanism will be created under the Privacy Shield, namely the Privacy Shield Ombusdperson who will be a Senior Coordinator (at the level of Under-Secretary) in the State Department in order to guarantee that individual complaints are investigated and individuals receive independent confirmation that US laws have been complied with or, in case of a violation of such laws, the non-compliance has been remedied.

The draft Privacy Shield framework may have been hailed as providing an ‘essentially equivalent’ level of protection for personal data transferred from the EU to the US, but despite the plethora of privacy-friendly words (‘Privacy Shield’, ‘robust obligations’, ‘clear limitations and safeguards’) one cannot be very optimistic that the new regime will fully comply with the Court’s judgment in Schrems.

A first problematic aspect with the US assurances is that they merely describe the US surveillance legal framework and the relevant safeguards that already exist.

In fact, the only changes that were introduced in the US following the Snowden revelations was the issuance of Presidential Policy Directive 28 (PPD-28) (in January 2014) which lays down a number of principles on the use of signal intelligence data for all people; and the passing of the USA Freedom Act which modified certain US surveillance programmes and put an end to the mass collection of Americans’ phone records by the NSA (in June 2015).

Finally, in February 2016, the US Congress passed the Judicial Redress Act which was signed into law by President Obama. Given that one can reasonably assume that the Court was aware of these developments when laying down its judgment in Schrems in October 2015, it seems that, with the exception of the Ombusdperson, Privacy Shield does not change much in US surveillance law. In fact, the Commission has entirely based its draft adequacy analysis on a mere detailed description of this law without any further commitment that this will improve in any way in order to comply with EU fundamental rights as interpreted by the CJEU.

While the assurance that US surveillance is mainly targeted and does not take place in bulk is important, there is no reference to the fact that US authorities access the content of the personal data that was deemed to violate the essence of the right to privacy in Schrems.

Furthermore, even if the US authorities engage only in targeted surveillance, the CJEU has held in Digital Rights Ireland that the mere retention of private-sector data for the purpose of making them available to national authorities affects Articles 7 and 8 EUCFR and might have a chilling effect on the use by subscribers of platforms of communication, such as Facebook or Google and, consequently, on their exercise of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 11 EUCFR.

Individuals, when faced with surveillance, cannot know when they are targeted; nevertheless, the possibility of being the object of surveillance has an effect on the way they behave. Insofar as Article 47 EUCFR and the right to effective judicial protection is concerned, the Commission itself notes in its draft adequacy decision that the avenues of redress provided to EU citizens do not cover all the legal bases that US intelligence authorities may use and the individuals’ opportunities to challenge FISA are very limited due to strict standing requirements.

The creation of the Ombusdperson with the important function of ensuring individual redress and independent oversight should be welcomed as the main addition of the draft Privacy Shield. Individuals will be able to access the Privacy Shield Ombusdperson without having to demonstrate that their personal data has in fact been accessed by the US intelligence activities and the Ombusdperson, who will be carrying out his functions independently from Instructions by the US Intelligence Community will be able to rely on the US oversight and review mechanisms.

However, there are several limitations to the function of the Privacy Shield Ombusdperson. First, the procedure for accessing the Ombudsperson is not as straightforward as lodging a complaint before a national Data Protection Authority (DPA). Individuals have to submit their requests initially to the Member States’ bodies competent for the oversight of national security services and, eventually a centralised EU individual complaint handling body that will channel them to the Privacy Shield Ombusdperson if they are deemed ‘complete’. In terms of the outcome of the Ombusdperson’s investigation, the Ombusdperson will provide a response to the submitting EU individual complaint handling body –who will then communicate with the individual- confirming (i) that the complaint has been properly investigated, and (ii) that the US law has been complied with, or, in the event of non-compliance, such non-compliance has been remedied. However, the Ombudsperson will neither confirm nor deny whether the individual has been the target of surveillance nor will the Ombudsperson confirm the specific remedy that was applied.

Finally, Annex III stipulates that commitments in the Ombudsperson’s Memorandum will not apply to general claims that the EU-US Privacy Shield is inconsistent with EU data protection requirements. In the light of the above, the Privacy Shield Ombudsperson does not seem to provide the redress guarantees of a supervisory authority such as the DPAs as the AG had asked in his Opinion in Schrems.

Draft Privacy Shield is problematic for another reason as well: it puts together the regulative framework for commercial transactions with the regulation for law enforcement access to private sector data. These are, however, different issues and they should be dealt with separately. It is important to encourage and facilitate transborder trade, thus flexible mechanisms allowing for undertakings self-compliance with data protection principles should continue to apply. But, the challenges of online surveillance on fundamental rights are too serious to be covered by the same regime and some ‘assurances’ that essentially describe the current US law.

Two solutions could possibly deal with this problem: Either the US adheres to the Council of Europe Convention No. 108 and abandons the distinction between US and EU citizens regarding rights to redress or a transatlantic privacy and data protection framework that ensures a high level of protection of fundamental rights and the transparency and accountability of transnational counter-terrorism operations (the so-called ‘umbrella agreement’) is adopted. Regrettably, the current form of the umbrella agreement is very problematic as to its compatibility with EU data protection standards- or even human rights standards in general, and, therefore, does not seem to provide an effective solution to the issue.

A recently leaked document reveals that the Article 29 Working Party has difficulties in reaching an overall conclusion on the Commission’s draft adequacy decision and supports the view that Privacy Shield does not fully comply with the essential guarantees for the transfer of personal data from the EU to the US for intelligence activities.

Should the Commission nevertheless decide to proceed with the current draft, it is highly possible that the CJEU will be called in the future to judge the adequacy of Privacy Shield in aSchrems 2 line of cases.