“Lisbonisation” of Europol and Eurojust : an in depth analysis for the European Parliament

The inter-agency cooperation and future architecture of the EU criminal justice and law enforcement area

Upon request by the LIBE Committee, the study aims at analysing the current relationship and foreseeable cooperation between several EU agencies and bodies: Europol, Eurojust, the European Anti-Fraud Office, the European Judicial Network and the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The study reflects on their cooperation regarding the fight against serious transnational crime and the protection of the European Union’s financial interests. It also identifies good practices and difficulties and suggests possible ways of improvements. AUTHORS Prof. Anne Weyemberg, Université Libre de Bruxelles and Coordinator of the European Criminal Law Academic Network (ECLAN) Mrs Inés Armada, PhD researcher, VUB-ULB, FWO Fellow Mrs Chloé Brière, GEM PhD researcher, ULB – UNIGE

BELOW THE TEXT OF PAGES 8-26. THE FULL STUDY  IS AVAILABLE HERE 

  1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Context of the study

For the time being, there are 9 JHA decentralised agencies: 6 depending from DG Home, namely EUROPOL, CEPOL, FRONTEX, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and the EU Agency for large-scale IT systems (Eu-LISA) and 3 depending from DG Justice, namely Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).

Besides the agencies, some other EU bodies/networks, which do not have the agency status, are to be mentioned, such as the EU Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European judicial network (EJN) or the European judicial training network (EJTN). Others are yet to be established, the main one on its way being the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).

Complementarity, consistency and a good articulation between all these bodies is crucial if the purpose is to establish a consistent Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) and effectively implement its three components. A good articulation between the EU bodies is also crucial to develop a multidisciplinary approach in the fight against serious cross-border crime.

This need has been repeatedly underlined, particularly by EU institutions1. A better delineation or a clearer definition of each EU agency/body’s competences and functions has been requested. Overlaps are however inevitable (i.e., grey zones) and may even present advantages. The key issue lies in learning how to manage them in good will and good faith. The key word here must be complementarity, which implies working hand in hand for the realisation of common goals, respect of respective mandates and expertise and good communication and coordination in case of overlap. Establishing such complementarity might prove a difficult task, and this for different reasons:

– The different agencies and bodies have been established at different times, in different contexts and in various decisional frameworks. The current agencies/bodies belong to different generations and are more or less mature, the three oldest being OLAF (ex-UCLAF), Europol and the EJN. Some of them are still under the pressure of figures, still fighting/struggling or feeling they have to fight/struggle to justify their existence and prove their added-value.

– The different agencies and bodies are driven/marked by different philosophies/natures/logics: for instance, OLAF has an EC nature, with real « autonomous »/supranational administrative powers, whereas Europol and Eurojust are still marked by the « intergovernmental third pillar spirit » and constitute « service providers » depending on the final decision taken by national authorities;

– They are also marked by differences in professional cultures, be it administrative, police, or judicial;

– Their structure differs (e.g. very different organisation/structure within Europol and Eurojust);

– The resources/means available to each of them are different. Some agencies/bodies are more powerful than others, including in the field of policy orientation. For instance, the major role played by Europol in the design of the EU Internal Security Strategy (ISS) and in the EU policy cycle must be mentioned.

– The articulation between the EU agencies/bodies must accommodate the differences between the different national criminal justice systems. These include the different distribution of competences/tasks between the administrative/criminal, police/justice and police/intelligence services. The treaty imposes respect to such differences, with the result that the EU agencies/bodies must be able to adapt to all the concerned systems. Thus, there is a need to remain vague in the definition of mandates/tasks and to safeguard flexibility. Such vagueness might however make more difficult a good articulation and relationship between the bodies concerned.

– The abovementioned difficulties result in a lack of a consistent vision of the EU area of criminal justice, which is somehow to be built/organised a posteriori. The fact that the different EU agencies/bodies are dealt with by different DGs within the Commission (that do not always entertain the best relations) and the silo approach taken by the General Secretariat of the Council2 clearly do not improve the situation.

– Against this background, the legislative instruments governing each EU agency/body remain quite vague with regard to cooperation with counterparts. Interagency relations are thus mostly left to the EU agencies/bodies themselves.

– Last but not least, the importance of personal relations must be stressed. Sometimes people understand each other and sometimes they do not…

Generally speaking, an improvement in the relations between the EU agencies/bodies has been witnessed, due to the conclusion/revision of bilateral agreements/memorandum of understandings and to the passage of time and the consequent gain of experience.

Such improvement is also due to other reasons such as the creation of coordination/monitoring mechanisms and the encouragement of inter-agency cooperation in the JHA field.

It has especially taken the form of the JHA contact group and the JHA Heads of Agencies meetings. They annually report to the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security (COSI)3, notably through a scorecard on cooperation, which is annexed to the annual report.

However, and in spite of a lot of quite positive official declarations, difficulties remain. Identifying them is the main purpose of this study, in order to suggest, where possible, ways of improvement. Continue reading ““Lisbonisation” of Europol and Eurojust : an in depth analysis for the European Parliament”

Trafficking in Human Beings: the EU legislates but the Member States keep dragging their feet…

by Federica VIGNALE (Free Group Trainee)

Since more than ten years Trafficking in Human beings is a recurrent issue on the agenda of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The last debate [i] was notably focused on the Commission Mid-term report on the 2012-2016 EU strategy towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings and the Global Report on Trafficking in persons of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Trafficking in Human Beings (THB) is recognized by the European and the international law as a gross violation of human rights and as a form of organized crime[ii]. At European level, THB is defined as “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or reception of persons, including the exchange or transfer of control over those persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation”. Furthermore, due to the presence of these forms of violence or coercion, trafficking in human beings represents also a form of modern slavery. Currently there are tens of thousands potential people who are kept in captivity or forced to provide services against their will, but there are some people who were lucky enough to have been identified.

In this respect and before analysing the European and the international legal context, it is worthwhile analysing the data related to victims and traffickers that emerge from the Trafficking in Human Beings Report that the DG Home Affairs and Eurostat published on the occasion of the EU Anti-Trafficking day anniversary. Between 2010 and 2012, 30.146 people were registered by the authorities, but this number is more alarming if we consider that there are certainly other victims of THB that have not been registered. The above-mentioned Report indicates also that:

  • “80 % of registered victims were female.
  • Over 1 000 child victims were trafficked for sexual exploitation[iii].
  • 69 % of registered victims were trafficked for sexual exploitation.
  • 95 % of registered victims of sexual exploitation were female.
  • 71 % of registered victims of labour exploitation were male.
  • 65 % of registered victims were EU citizens.
  • There are no discernible trends in the variation of victim data at EU level over the three reference years.
  • 8 551 prosecutions for trafficking in human beings were reported by Member States over the three years 2010-2012.
  • Over 70 % of traffickers were male. This is the case for suspects, prosecutions and convicted traffickers.
  • 3 786 convictions for trafficking in human beings were reported by Member States over the three years.
  • There are no discernible trends in the number of prosecutions or convictions at EU level”.

Two thirds of the victims are from the countries within the EU (Romania, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland), and the rest of the victims are primarily from Nigeria, China, Vietnam, Brazil and Russia. These figures are extremely worrying, especially because – in terms of legislation – the EU has built a very ambitious legal framework that consists of: Continue reading “Trafficking in Human Beings: the EU legislates but the Member States keep dragging their feet…”

ENDING THE EXPLOITATION OF SEASONAL WORKERS: EU LAW PICKS THE LOW-HANGING FRUIT

Original published on EU LAW ANALYSIS

by Steve Peers

For a long time, it proved impossible for the EU to agree on legislation on migrant workers coming from non-EU countries. Eventually, the Member States were able to agree on some laws that mostly concerned higher-income migrants: the Blue Card Directive (on its implementation, see here) and the Directive on intra-corporate transferees (see discussion here). The EU has also adopted some general rules on the overall framework for admission of labour migrants (the so-called single permit Directive).

But for the first time last year, the EU also adopted rules on a less well-paid group of migrant workers: seasonal workers. This group of workers is potentially particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Does the recent Directive go far enough to protect them from these risks?

Content of the Directive

Member States have to apply this Directive by 30 September 2016, and the UK, Ireland and Denmark opted out of it. It is limited in scope to those who normally reside outside the territory of the EU, and who apply to be admitted as seasonal workers, or who have already been admitted under the terms of the Directive. Also, it applies to those admitted for less than three months as well as those admitted for a longer period. For the former group, the Directive specifies that the EU’s borders and visas legislation continues to apply, and makes a number of cross-references to those measures. Furthermore, the Directive does not apply to those workers who are usually employed in other Member States, and who are ‘posted’ by their employers to work in a second Member State, to non-EU family members of EU citizens, and to non-EU citizens covered by an agreement which extends free movement rights (the EEA or EU/Swiss treaties).

A ‘seasonal worker’ is a worker who normally resides outside the EU, and who lives temporarily in the EU to ‘carry out an activity dependent on the passing of the seasons’, pursuant to a fixed-term contract concluded directly with an employer established in a Member State. The concept of a seasonal activity is in turn defined as an ‘activity that is tied to a certain time of the year by a recurring event or pattern of events linked to seasonal conditions during which required labour levels are significantly above those necessary for usually ongoing operations.’ Member States have to define what the relevant sectors are; the preamble refers to tourism, agriculture and horticulture as areas where seasonal work is usually needed.

Member States are free to set higher standards for certain issues (procedural safeguards, accommodation, workers’ rights and facilitation of complaints), but otherwise the Directive has set fully harmonised rules. So Member States can’t alter the substantive grounds for admission or the rules on duration of stay and re-entry.

The key criteria for admission are fully mandatory. Member States have to ensure that an application to enter as a seasonal worker is accompanied by: a valid work contract or binding job offer, setting out all of the details of the job; a valid travel document (possibly valid for the entire duration of the seasonal work); evidence of having, or having applied for, sickness insurance (unless such coverage comes with the work contract); and evidence of having accommodation, as defined in the Directive (see below). Member States have to check that the seasonal worker has sufficient resources not to have to use the social assistance system, cannot admit persons considered to pose a threat to public policy, public security or public health, and must check that the applicant does not pose a risk of illegal immigration and intends to leave the Member States’ territory when the authorization for seasonal work expires.

Applications have to be rejected whenever these conditions are not met, or where the documents presented with an application are ‘fraudulently acquired, or falsified, or tampered with.’ Member States also have to reject applications, ‘if appropriate’, where there has been a prior sanction against the employer for ‘undeclared work and/or illegal employment’, the employer is being wound up or has no economic activity, or the employer has been sanctioned for breach of the Directive.

Otherwise the grounds for refusal of an application are optional: a labour market preference test for home State citizens, other EU citizens or third-country nationals lawfully residing and forming part of the labour market; the application of Member States’ rules on volumes of admission of third-country nationals; or breaches of employment law by the employer, the use of seasonal work to replace a full-time job, or a prior breach of immigration law by the would-be worker. There are similar provisions on withdrawal of the authorisation to work as a seasonal worker, although it should be noted that Member States can withdraw authorization if the worker applies for international protection.

As for the admission procedure, Member States have to make information available on the conditions of entry and residence and rights, as well as the admission process. It’s up to Member States to decide whether the applicant or the employer makes the application, and the application process takes the form of a single application procedure for a combined work/residence status. Those applicants who fulfil the admission criteria and who do not fall foul of the grounds for refusal must be granted a permit or visa, in the format of the EU standard visa or residence permit.

There’s a total maximum limit of between five and nine months per calendar year of residence for a seasonal worker; they must then return to a third country. Since the Directive only regulates admission and stay of seasonal workers, it should follow that Member States still retain discretion to permit the worker to stay for longer on some other ground.

Within the maximum time limit, seasonal workers will be able, on one occasion, to change employers or to obtain an extension of their stay with their employer, if they still meet the criteria for admission, although the grounds for refusal will still apply. The preamble makes clear that this possibility is intended to avoid abuse, since the worker will not be tied to a single employer. Member States will have an option to allow further extensions or changes of employer. But again they can punish any worker who applies for international protection, by refusing to extend that worker’s stay.

Next, the Directive facilitates the re-entry of seasonal workers who were admitted at least once within the previous five years, if they complied with immigration law during their stay. This could include a simplified application process, an accelerated procedure, priority for previous seasonal workers, or the issue of several seasonal worker permits at the same time. The idea is to give an incentive to workers to comply with immigration law.

Member States have to impose sanctions against employers who have breached their obligations under the Directive, including a possible ban on employing seasonal workers. If seasonal workers’ permit to work is withdrawn because of the employer’s illegal behaviour, the employer must compensate the employees for all the work they have done or would have done. There are specific rules on the liability of sub-contractors.

Moving on to procedural safeguards, the Directive provides for: a notified decision in writing within ninety days of the application; special rules on the renewal of authorization; a chance to provide additional necessary information within a reasonable deadline; and a requirement that a rejection (or withdrawal or non-renewal of a permit) be issued in writing and open to a legal challenge, with information on the reasons for the decision, the redress available, and the relevant time-limits. Member States may charge fees for applications, if they are not disproportionate or excessive, and may require employers to pay the costs of workers’ travel and sickness insurance. Workers’ accommodation must ensure an ‘adequate’ standard of living, rents cannot be excessive, a contract for housing must be issued, and employers must ensure that accommodation meets health and safety standards.

As for the rights of seasonal workers, first of all they have the right to enter and stay on the territory of the relevant Member State, free access to the territory of that Member State, and the right to carry out the economic activity which they have been authorized to take up.  Furthermore, they have the right to equal treatment with nationals as regards terms of employment (including working conditions), freedom of association, back payments, social security, the transfer of pensions, access to goods and services available to the public (except housing), employment advice (on seasonal work), education, and recognition of diplomas, and tax benefits. However, equal treatment can be restricted as regards family benefits, unemployment benefits, education and tax benefits, and Member States are still free to withdraw or to refuse to renew the permit in accordance with the Directive. Finally, Member States must ensure monitoring, assessment, and inspections, and facilitate complaints workers or by third parties supporting or acting on their behalf.

Comments

According to its preamble, the intention of this Directive is to regulate the admission of seasonal workers with a view to enhancing the EU’s economic competitiveness, optimizing the link between migration and development, while guaranteeing decent working and living conditions for the workers, alongside incentives and safeguards to prevent overstaying or permanent stay. In principle it has achieved some of these goals, in particular by including a number of provisions to ensure equal treatment and decent accommodation for seasonal workers, to punish employers who mistreat workers or who breach immigration law, and to guarantee that the rules in question are enforced.

In fact the Directive was significantly improved on these points during the legislative process, in particular as regards monitoring and punishment of dodgy employers, accommodation standards, equal treatment (which was significantly extended in scope), employees’ costs, and remedies against employers (compare the final Directive to the original proposal). Doubtless this was largely due to the hard work of NGOs which raised these issues (see their joint statement here). Perhaps the EU should use this Directive as a template to try and address the exploitation of other vulnerable groups of migrant workers – for instance domestic workers, who are at particular risk of being enslaved or trafficked.

Having said that, there are some limits to what Member States were willing to agree. There are exceptions from the equal treatment rule, and some of the provisions on dodgy employers, as well as the ban on passing costs along to the workers, are optional, not mandatory. (See the comments on the final Directive by a group of NGOs here). The right to change employers is subject to conditions, and Member States might decided to allow only one such change. More broadly, while the provisions on enforcement are stronger than what Member States are usually willing to agree to in EU laws about migrant labour (or indeed EU employment law), it remains to be seen how much resources Member States are actually willing to expend on enforcement in practice.

Furthermore, since the Directive is limited in scope to those who are not yet on the territory, it can do nothing to alleviate the position of those who are present without authorization but who cannot be returned (ie who are in limbo) and it gives Member States express carte blanche to deprive asylum-seekers of even the modest income which they were previously earning as seasonal workers. Overall, while the Directive will hopefully have some effect achieving its objectives, it may be a classic example of what academics call ‘picking the low-hanging fruit’ – focusing on the easier issues and avoiding the harder ones.

*This post is based on my ongoing research for the 4th edition of EU Justice and Home Affairs Law (forthcoming, OUP)

Will the empire strike back? Strasbourg’s reaction to the CJEU’s accession opinion

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON VERFASSUNGSBLOG  on Fri 30 Jan 2015

by Tobias Lock

Annual reports by international courts are rarely the stuff of controversy or harbingers of judicial conflict. Thus the strongly worded response to the European Court of Justice’s (CJEU) Opinion 2/13 (here) in the annual report of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) presented by President Spielmann yesterday warrants a few comments (a provisional version can be found here).

It is recalled that the CJEU considered the draft agreement on the EU’s accession to the ECHR to be incompatible with the Treaties on a number of grounds. Academic criticism followed promptly, not least on this blog (here). The short passage in the President’s foreword to the ECtHR’s annual report, probably squeezed in in the last minute, constitutes a first reaction by the institution most affected by the Opinion. It is worth reproducing the full quote here:

“The end of the year was also marked by the delivery on 18 December 2014 of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) eagerly awaited opinion on the draft agreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights.  Bearing in mind that negotiations on European Union accession have been under way for more than thirty years, that accession is an obligation under the Lisbon Treaty and that all the member States along with the European institutions had already stated that they considered the draft agreement compatible with the Treaties on European Union and the Functioning of the European Union, the CJEU’s unfavourable opinion is a great disappointment. Let us not forget, however, that the principal victims will be those citizens whom this opinion (no. 2/13) deprives of the right to have acts of the European Union subjected to the same external scrutiny as regards respect for human rights as that which applies to each member State. More than ever, therefore, the onus will be on the Strasbourg Court to do what it can in cases before it to protect citizens from the negative effects of this situation.”

It is hardly surprising to learn that Strasbourg found the outcome of Opinion 2/13 disappointing. After all, it has thrown a serious spanner in the works of future accession negotiations, which a renowned expert on EU-ECHR relations such as President Spielmann must have realised straight away. What is unusual, is the strong language used in an official document such as this. The President does not hide the Strasbourg’s feelings behind the bush when expressing ‘a great disappointment’ and when speaking of the ‘victims’ of the Opinion.

But judicial politics aside, the question arises whether this statement could herald a new and frostier relationship between the two European courts. Up until now, the courts expressed some pride in their good relations with regular meetings between the judges and their ‘judicial dialogue’. The special relationship between them is epitomised in the Bosphorus case where the ECtHR held that the protection of human rights provided by the European Union was equivalent to what the Convention requires.

As a consequence, Member States that would otherwise be responsible for human rights violations rooted in their obligations under EU law (see the Matthews case) enjoy a presumption that their conduct was justified provided that they had no discretion in carrying out their obligations. The presumption can only be rebutted where the applicant can show a manifestly deficient protection in the very case.

The final sentence of the above quote is instructive. By positioning Strasbourg as the last resort for victims of human rights violations and by making it clear that the status quo (i.e. the EU outside the Convention) yields negative effects for these victims, the president paves the rhetorical way for a change of attitude. Of course, we are dealing only with a statement made in an annual report, not in a judgment. Moreover, the statement is signed by only one of the 47 judges, and even though he is the Court’s president, he is no position to dictate the future outcome of decisions.

It is nonetheless worth asking what, if anything, this could mean in practice. One rather drastic option would be for the ECtHR to revoke the Bosphorus presumption, but this seems unlikely. The presumption is based on an assessment of the substantive human rights protection by the CJEU, which certainly has not deteriorated.

If anything, the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the CJEU’s recent fundamental rights case law suggest an improvement. Moreover, in terms of judicial politics this would certainly be a big bang, which courts should try to avoid.

What one could imagine, however, is a tightening of the conditions for the application of the presumption so that more cases would be reviewable by Strasbourg.

Moreover, it is possible that Strasbourg could give up its Connolly case law, which requires there to be some Member State involvement for the ECtHR to have jurisdiction under Article 1 ECHR so that entirely EU internal situations, e.g. in the field of competition law, would become actionable in Strasbourg.

More subtly still, the Strasbourg court could consider subjecting the EU’s principle of mutual trust to stricter scrutiny. After all, this is an area that is largely immune from fundamental rights review. Of course, the executing Member State in such cases normally has no discretion so that the Bosphorus presumption would kick in. But one could argue that where no judicial review of fundamental rights violations is possible, the ‘equivalent protection’ presumption is rebutted on the basis that the protection in the concrete case was manifestly deficient. Let us remember that the CJEU identified the alleged lack of protection of the principle of mutual trust in the accession agreement as one of the reasons to declare the accession agreement incompatible with the Treaties. This would thus provide Strasbourg with an opportunity to strike back and demonstrate that an exclusion of that principle in the accession agreement would run counter to its overall aim of improving the human rights protection in Europe.

One should be careful, of course, not to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is still early days and one can at this point do no more than speculate. The only certainty is that there are interesting days ahead.

Dieser Text steht unter der Lizenz CC BY NC ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode) Suggested citation: Lock, Tobias: Will the empire strike back? Strasbourg’s reaction to the CJEU’s accession opinion, VerfBlog, 2015/1/30, http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/will-empire-strike-back-strasbourgs-reaction-cjeus-accession-opinion/

THE MISSING LINK: DIRECT EFFECT, CETA/TTIP AND INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

This blogpost has been published previously on ‚Verfassungsblog – On Matters Constitutional‘ on Wednesday, 7 January 2015

By Daniel Thym, Chair of Public, European and International Law, University of Konstanz

International treaties have rarely received more attention than the proposed free trade deals between the EU and the US and Canada. This entails that many law students and practitioners are confronted with a theme that does not feature prominently in legal education. In debates with students, I realise that preconceptions about the functioning of domestic legal systems are regularly projected upon the international sphere. One example is a demand that companies should challenge state action before domestic courts instead of dispute settlement bodies under the planned EU/US agreement (TTIP) and the proposed EU/Canada trade agreement (CETA). These claims often assume that national courts hold the competence to enforce corresponding rules. For lawyers working on domestic issues it seems self-evident that courts can apply the law.

Against this background, this blogpost focuses on a provision in the Draft CETA with Canada (Article 14.14: see the text below), whose relevance has not been acknowledged so far, including by the stimulating contributions to the Verfassungsblog Symposium on Investment Protection. On page 470 of the roughly 1600 pages of the consolidated CETA Draft Agreement, which the Commission regards as a template for free trade negotiations with the United States, we come across a final provision of seemingly minor relevance on ‘private rights’, which rejects the applicability of the agreement en passant. This reaffirms that the implications of the free trade deals would be less dramatic than some suggest.

Background: CETA and TTIP as International EU Agreements

In order to understand the relevance of Article 14.14 on private rights, we should apprehend that most segments of the free trade agreements would be binding upon Member States as an integral part of EU law. Axel Flessner may try to argue that the arrangements would constitute an ultra-vires-act (thereby initiating more tweets than any other contribution to the said symposium), but the plain Treaty text demonstrates that the legal picture is fairly evident.Article 207 TFEU declares that the EU’s Common Commercial Policy (CCP) allows for the conclusion of trade agreements on goods and services and embraces, among others, ‘foreign direct investment’, while Article 3 TFEU maintains that the conclusion of agreements in this area shall be an exclusive Union competence.

These provisions were a deliberate policy choice after decades of wrangles about the precise scope of the CCP. The Treaty of Lisbon was meant to replace earlier and ambiguous formulations with an overarching competence for the European Union. In its Lisbon Judgment, the German Federal Constitutional Court recognised the pertinence of this change: ‘With the exclusive competence as set out above, the Union acquires the sole power of disposition over international trade agreements which may result in an essential reorganisation of the internal order of the Member States.’ Judges in Karlsruhe gave the green light to the changes nonetheless, albeit with a minor caveat that ‘much argues in favour of assuming that the term “foreign direct investment” only encompasses investment which serves to obtain a controlling interest in an enterprise’ and excluded so-called portfolio investments (ie, non-controlling interests in companies) as a result.

This reference to the limits of the CCP is relevant, since it indicates, in general terms, that there remain uncertainties about the precise delimitation of competences for corollary aspects of international trade. For that reason, most national governments maintain that CETA and TTIP should be concluded as so-called ‘mixed agreements’, with the EU and all 28 EU Member States as signatories. If that view prevailed, national parliaments would have to give their consent as well. However, this would not modify the internal allocation of powers; the EU institutions are in the driving seat in the vast field of Union competence – both during the negotiations and with regard to legal effects. It is established case law that the legal effects of mixed agreements follow the rules of Union law for all matters that are covered by the Common Commercial Policy.

Domestic Application of Agreements concluded by the EU

The predominance of Union law in legal practice can obscure our awareness of the specificities of the international legal system. Law students across Europe learn in their undergraduate courses about the direct and supreme effect of supranational rules, but are not always familiar with public international law. Domestic courts have to apply Union law in pretty much the same was as national law, but this assumption cannot be extended to public international law without modification, including in situations in which the EU concludes international agreements with third states.

It is true that the ECJ maintains that international agreements can have direct effect as an integral part of the Union legal order – and an example demonstrates that this can have critical implications: for example, judges in Luxembourg decided in July that Member States cannot automatically require the spouses of Turkish nationals to acquire basic language skills of the host country. Legally, this conclusion rests upon an interpretation of the so-called standstill provision for the self-employed in the Additional Protocol of 1970 to the Association Agreement between Turkey and today’s European Union. In the terminology of international trade law, the case concerned a so-called non-tariff barrier to the freedom of establishment. It is these non-tariff barriers that take centre stage in both CETA and TTIP negotiations (neither of the latter treaties will affect migration, though).

If the underlying legal arguments about direct effect and court jurisdiction extended to free trade deals with Canada and the United States, the implications could be dramatic indeed. Both the ECJ and domestic courts would hold the power to correct domestic or supranational legislation, whenever it falls foul of CETA or TTIP. Yet, this outcome is no foregone conclusion, since the ECJ opts for a direct applicability of international agreements ‘only where the nature and the broad logic of the latter do not preclude this.’ In deciding whether this is the case, the Court considers, among other things, the purpose of the agreement, the will of the parties and the question of reciprocity, i.e. whether the Union would be alone in recognising direct effect. Luxembourg may have largely ignored the question of reciprocity with regard to Turkey and other neighbours of the EU, but it traditionally takes centre stage in the evaluation of trade liberalisation agreements.

Article 14.14 of the CETA Draft Treaty

Once we have understood the far-reaching implications of direct applicability, we may appreciate the bearing of the clause on private rights in the final provisions of the consolidatedDraft CETA Agreement, which states: ‘Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as conferring rights or imposing obligations on persons other than those created between the Parties under public international law, nor as permitting this Agreement to be directly invoked in the domestic legal systems of the Parties.’

That is nothing less than the official denial of direct effect in the operative treaty text; neither the ECJ nor domestic courts would hold the power to apply CETA rules in domestic proceedings or to annul legislation which contradicts trade law. CETA and TTIP would get the same treatment that the ECJ accords to WTO law, which also does not have direct effect in the EU legal order and the domestic legal systems of the Member States – not even in situations, in which the appellate body of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism confirmed that EU legislation falls foul of WTO standards.

Denial of direct effect is an important stumbling block for the long-term success of any free trade agreement, especially when it comes to the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade, since corresponding rules are often formulated in an open manner. The real-life implications of such vaguely formulated provisions depends decisively upon the continued will of the parties and the availability of control and enforcement mechanisms – as the experience with non-tariff barriers to trade in the EU single market and the example of language requirements for spouses of Turkish nationals demonstrate. Without institutional control mechanism, vague treaty formulations are often ineffective.

Implications for the Debate about Investor-State-Dispute Settlement

In the light of Article 14.14 of the CETA Draft Agreement, we may have to re-consider our perspective on the proposed investor-state-dispute settlement rules in both CETA and TTIP. Critics will use the absence of direct application as an argument to decry the special treatment for investors; supporters, by contrast, will argue with the Commission that the dispute settlement bodies are a compensation for domestic legal remedies, which would not be available for the substantive rules of CETA and TTIP. I personally share the opinion of Christian Tams that the debate should focus on the desirability of special rules for investors (and not the question of procedure). The latter may be superfluous in relations with the US and Canada, but to abandon them would render it difficult to insist upon similar provisions in negotiations with China, Russia or other states we trust less.

In any case, the absence of direct effect in domestic proceedings shows that the legal implications of CETA and TIIP would be less dramatic than some commentators in the public debate suggest. Courts in Europe would not hold the power to annul domestic or supranational legislation, which violates the agreements – a power that also the dispute settlement bodies would be denied explicitly, together with the option for the state parties to force their reading of the agreements upon the arbiters by means of an authoritative interpretation. This would orientate the dispute settlement rules in CETA and TTIP towards inter-state bargaining, pretty much like in the WTO context.

The denial of direct application demonstrates that both the CETA Draft Agreement and the TTIP negotiation position are far removed from resembling anything like EU-style integration through law – and I consider this to be a good thing given that any dynamic interpretation would lack much of the democratic legitimacy and procedural constraints, which we have, notwithstanding all the deficits, in the European context. It seems to me that it is the biggest benefit of the debate about CETA and TTIP to this date that the broader public has started discussing the governance of economic globalisation. That debate will stay with us, even if an seemingly unimpressive provision on page 470 of the CETA Draft Agreement excludes the domestic enforcement of the transatlantic trade rules.

 

THE UPS AND DOWNS OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP – THE CJEU ON DUAL TURKISH/EU CITIZENS AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS

By Professors : ELSPETH GUILD, (QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON), KEES GROENENDIJK, (RADBOUD UNIVERSITY) AND STEVE PEERS, (UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX)

In recent years, an increasing number of Turkish citizens residing in the EU have become dual citizens of Turkey and an EU Member State. Like other dual citizens of a Member State and a non-Member State, they can invoke EU free movement law to move and reside in another Member State (see the CJEU’s Micheletti judgment). But as a general rule, EU free movement law will not confer rights in their home Member State. So in that case, can they still rely upon their Turkish citizenship to claim rights under the EU/Turkey association agreement?

Back in 2012, in its judgment in Kahveci and Inan, the CJEU determined that dual Turkish/Dutch nationals were entitled to rely on their Turkish citizenship to enjoy the benefits of the EU/Turkey association agreement as regards family reunification and thus escape the stricter national legislation for own nationals’ family members. So until the recent decision earlier this month in Demirci, it looked as if Turkish citizens with a second passport from a Member State were more or less free to choose which one to rely on in order to benefit from EU law. But the Demirci judgment changes the rules slightly and provides a more elaborated legal reasoning to when dual nationals of Turkey and a Member State may use one or other of their citizenship.

The finding is rather ominous so we will start some background on the facts of the case and conclude with a rather optimistic analysis where we conclude that dual nationality is still a strong source of rights in EU law and that this judgment is perhaps the exception.

The Facts:

Mr Demirci and his fellow applicants are all former Turkish workers who had worked in the Netherlands for many years fulfilling the conditions of the secondary legislation of the EU/Turkey Association Agreement, Decision 1/80 of the EU/Turkey Association Council, which regulates aspects of the immigration status of Turkish workers and their family members. They had all naturalised as Dutch nationals but kept their Turkish citizenship. They all became disabled and incapacitated for work and thus permanently left the labour force. They received a Dutch social benefit designed to provide income for the incapacitated. But this benefit is rather low so they applied for a top up benefit to bring their income closer to that of the minimum wage. They were all awarded the top up benefit.

Then a series of things happened. The men retired with their families to Turkey. The Dutch Government began to change the rules on the top up benefit to exclude anyone not resident in the Netherlands (or the EU). Mr Demirci and his colleagues first had their top up benefit reduced then it was cut off altogether on the basis that they no longer lived in the Netherlands (or EU). They appealed, relying on their Turkish nationality, on the basis that this treatment was contrary to the EU/Turkey Association Agreement measure on social security – Association Council Decision 3/80. The argument went that the Dutch authorities may be able to cut off the top up benefit to their own nationals living outside the EU as this is a matter wholly internal to one Member State. But they cannot cut off the top up benefit to Turkish nationals who have fulfilled the conditions as workers in a Member State under Decision 1/80 as this is a matter of EU law (which does not permit such an act – Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80 protects Turkish workers who retire to Turkey as regards receipt of social benefits). Several years ago, the CJEU ruled in Akdas that such rules infringed Decision 3/80 as regards Turkish nationals who returned to Turkey. But could a dual citizen of Turkey and a Member State rely on that judgment, as a Turkish citizen – or would he or she be prevented from doing so, as a national of that Member State?

The reasoning

The CJEU bluntly tells Mr Demirci and his colleagues that they cannot rely on Decision 3/80 to object to the residence requirement imposed by the Dutch authorities (para 52). This is because, according to the Court, the objectives of the Decision and the EU/Turkey regime is to ensure the progressive integration of Turkish workers into the territory of the host Member State. The social security provisions consolidate that objective.

The Court provides two main reasons for this position. First, because Mr Demirci and his colleagues had acquired Dutch nationality they are in a particular situation as regards the Agreement. Citizenship is ‘the most accomplished level of integration’ of a person into the host state (para 54). This new citizenship means that the former Turkish worker can now enter and reside freely in the Netherlands or indeed any other EU Member State where he or she might wish to go. Conversely, in Kahveci & Inan the Court did not accept the argument of the Dutch government that naturalisation is the pinnacle of integration. In that case AG Sharpston argued that naturalisation may be an indication that an immigrant is on his path to integration, but that is not the same as saying that he has become completely integrated. .

But as Turkish nationals, Mr Demirci and his friends could only live in Turkey or their host Member State (the Netherlands) and so they have no free movement rights. Further as such, they only benefit from certain rights in the host Member State. So, says the Court, for the purposes of paying them a benefit, it is reasonable for the national authorities to make this subject to the same rules as apply to all other Dutch nationals (para 57).

Secondly, dual Turkish/Dutch nationals would be placed in a better position than other EU citizens if they were allowed to have the top up benefit even though they did not fulfil the residential requirement (para 58). The right to export to Turkey social benefits in Decision 3/80, according to the Court, is a sort of compensation for the fact that Turkish nationals will no longer be able to return to and live in the host Member State. As the CJEU held inBozkurt, a Turkish national ceases to be a protected person under Decision 1/80 if he or she becomes totally and permanently incapacitated for work (para 64). So there is a justification for applying different rules to those who are exclusively Turkish nationals as they have a much less secure residence status in the host Member State and no free movement rights in EU law. They therefore need the extra protection of the export right. For dual Turkish/Dutch nationals, they can always move back to the EU and fulfil the residential requirements for the top up benefit (even if they would rather not) (para 65).

 Distinguishing Kahveci & Inan

As mentioned above, this judgment takes a different approach from the CJEU’s own jurisprudence in Kahveci & Inan where it held that dual Turkish/Dutch nationals were allowed to rely on their Turkish nationality for the purposes of the EU/Turkey family reunification rules, in order to benefit from the expulsion of Turkish workers’ family members, which are more favourable than the rules applying to the expulsion of the family members of Dutch citizens in the Netherlands. However, the CJEU is anxious to protect its ruling in Kahveci and goes to some lengths to explain why the finding in Kahveci is consistent with that which they were giving in Demirci (para 66). The argument goes like this. Family reunification enhances integration, for Turkish workers who are already legally integrated into the host Member State. Article 7 of Decision 1/80 deepens the last integration of a Turkish worker by granting to that worker’s family members, after three years residence, access to the labour force (para 67). So, acquisition of national citizenship could not be used as a reason to deprive the worker of the benefit of family reunification in Decision 1/80 (para 68). By contrast with the facts in Demirci, the family’s integration would be hindered if it was denied on the basis of dual citizenship. Further in Kahveci the person was seeking to benefit family members who are also Turkish nationals (para 70). Presumably this reasoning means that dual Turkish/EU citizens can also invoke the ‘standstill’ clause in the EU/Turkey association agreement, as interpreted last year in the CJEU’s Dogan judgment (discussed here), to avoid stricter rules for family reunion that apply to a Member State’s own nationals.

But in the case of Mr Demirci he can always go back to the Netherlands (or the EU) to satisfy the residential requirement to get the top up (para 69). Further all he and his colleagues wanted was a top up benefit for themselves (para 71). Finally, the CJEU considered that if Mr Demirci could rely on Decision 1/80 to have the top up benefit while not fulfilling the residential requirement, this would put them in a better situation than that of other citizens of the Union (and thus contravene Article 59 of the Additional Protocol to the EU/Turkey association agreement, which rules out Turkish citizens being better off than EU citizens).

The Court’s approach seems to be that there is something inherently wrong about letting Mr Demirci and his colleagues have their cake and eat it too. The arguments may not be the most compelling in the world but they show a clear judicial line. The CJEU will favour Turkish nationals living in the EU even if they have taken a second citizenship so long as this improves their long lasting integration. But they cannot rely on their Turkish citizenship after naturalization when what they seek is a financial benefit which is subject to a residential requirement for EU citizens (and which they do not fulfil because they have left the EU).

The Court appears to implicitly return somewhat to its reasoning in the Mesbah judgement of 1999, where it held that the Moroccan mother of a Belgian-Moroccan worker who was living with her son in Belgium could not rely on the clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds on nationality in the EEC-Morocco Association Agreement to claim a disablement allowance that under Belgian law was only granted to Belgian nationals. The Court inDemirci, however, does explicitly point to the difference with Kahveci & Inan: “[in] the present case, by contrast, the respondents in the main proceedings are relying on the provisions of Decision 1/80 on their own behalf and in their own interest” (para 70). The Court leaves the door open for the Turkish spouse of a Turkish/Dutch (ex-) worker to rely on Decision 3/80, because the spouse, not having Dutch nationality, would be unable to return to the Netherlands.

Conclusions

The most important thing to remember about the Demirci decision is that it does not undermine the Court’s judgment in favour of dual rights for dual citizens in Kahveci & Inan. Yes, Turkish nationals can rely on the EU/Turkey association agreement family reunion rules even after they have naturalized in their host Member State, provided they are allowed to have dual nationality (it isn’t yet clear if they could invoke the EU’s own family reunion Directive). But they cannot rely on their non-EU citizenship after they leave the EU to get around a national residential requirement for the export of a social benefit if such a requirement applies to nationals of the host Member State.

Terrorists and serious criminals beware ! Your travel data can tell everything about you..

by Emilio DE CAPITANI

After the last terrorist attacks the President of The European Council, the EU interior ministers, the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator (CTC), the European Commission, some national parliaments and even the press have raised their voice against the European Parliament which is blocking since years a legislative measure on the access by law enforcement authorities to the passenger name record (PNR) managed by the airlines when you make a flight reservation.
Beware!
PNR data are not used to find criminals or already known dangerous persons.
This will be a too easy solution but will require a change in the Member state internal security policy. Member states remain extremely jealous of their security related data. According to the current EU legislation (and the Europol revised proposal) data dealing with already known criminals, terrorists, serial killers dangerous persons remain under the control of each national authority which can share them with other EU member States and EU agencies, (such as Europol and Eurojust), only on voluntary basis.

On the contrary PNR data of ordinary citizens could be mandatory collected from airlines and shared to a enable Law enforcement authorities “..to identify persons who were previously “unknown”, i.e. persons previously unsuspected of involvement in terrorism or serious crime, but whom an analysis of the data suggests may be involved in such crime and who should therefore be subject to further examination by the competent authorities.”

The (non exhaustive) list of “serious crimes” which according to the Council and the Commission can be prevented thanks to these miraculous bits of information is indeed impressive :
1. participation in a criminal organisation, 2. trafficking in human beings, 3. sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, 4. illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 5. illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives, 6. fraud, 7. laundering of the proceeds of crime, 8. computer-related crime,9. environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties, 10. facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence, 11. illicit trade in human organs and tissue, 12. kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking, 13. organised and armed robbery, 14. illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art, 15. forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein, 16. illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters, 17. illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials, 18. unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships, 19. sabotage, and 20. trafficking in stolen vehicles.

But which kind of data are so meaningful that they to reveal such diverse kinds of criminal behavior ?

The (again, non exhaustive) list of these data is attached to the draft Directive and is as follows:
(1) PNR record locator (2) Date of reservation/issue of ticket (3) Date(s) of intended travel (4) Name(s) (5) Address and contact information (telephone number, e-mail address) (6) All forms of payment information, including billing address (7) Complete travel itinerary for specific PNR (8) Frequent flyer information (9) Travel agency/travel agent (10) Travel status of passenger, including confirmations, check-in status, no show or go show information (11) Split/divided PNR information (12) General remarks (including all available information on unaccompanied minors under 18 years, such as name and gender of the minor, age, language(s) spoken, name and contact details of guardian on departure and relationship to the minor, name and contact details of guardian on arrival and relationship to the minor, departure and arrival agent) (13) Ticketing field information, including ticket number, date of ticket issuance and one-way tickets, Automated Ticket Fare Quote fields (14) Seat number and other seat information (15) Code share information (16) All baggage information (17) Number and other names of travellers on PNR (18) Any Advance Passenger Information (API) data collected (inter alia document type, document number, nationality, country of issuance, date of document expiration, family name, given name, gender, date of birth, airline, flight number, departure date, arrival date, departure port, arrival port, departure time, arrival time) (19) All historical changes to the PNR listed in numbers 1 to 18.

The draft Council text allows Member States also to collect other personal data if they so wish. (Guess if also the place of birth was added it would be possible to know also the Astrological profile and we all know after thousand years of consistent scientific observation that people with the sun or ascendant in Scorpio can be extremely dangerous..)

On this basis You still consider that this “machinery” deemed to filter millions a record a day by 28 different Passenger Unit in the member states without a meaningful judicial control and storing them for five years is not only an abuse of fundamental rights of millions of passengers, but is also contrary to the freedom of movement protected by the Treaty and the Charter, and is disproportionate? Moreover is contrary to the rule of law principle discriminatory because data on passengers will differ simply because of the different methods followed by each airline when dealing with their reservation systems?

Do you still think that such a machinery which in the US is backed by an intelligence counter terrorism endeavor of hundred billion dollars per year, will work in countries where police has hardly the resource to pay the petrol for their cars and were the first reflex is not to share “its” criminal records with the other member states and even less with EU agencies (which also stand side by side only for the family photo of the annual budget before the European Parliament) ?

In this framework would not be much wise, as a matter of priority, for the European Union to prevent and fight terrorism and serious crime by interconnecting the member states criminal record systems and by adding also the data of third country nationals who have already been convicted and condemned in their country for serious crimes?

Do you not consider that 28 national PNR (following each one its own profiling tactics) will be useless at European level where in any case only 2% of the Europol data deal with terrorist and are fed by only 4 of the 28 EU Countries ?

Last but not least, a real terrorist and criminals will not be tempted to avoid all of this by using false documents (easily accessible on internet) or, more safely, by keeping a train ?

Read the text below and (maybe) you will change your mind. But if you still consider that the PNR is the silver bullet to fight terrorists I have a used car that can be of your interest..

——————————————
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 23 April 2012
8916/12
Interinstitutional File: 2011/0023 (COD)
GENVAL 23 AVIATION 73 DATAPROTECT 52 CODEC 1024
NOTE
From: Presidency
to: Council
No. prev. doc.: 8448/1/12 REV 1 GENVAL 17 AVIATI*N 60 DATAPR*TECT 40 C*DEC 897
Subject: Proposal for a Directive of the Council and the European Parliament on the use of
Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime

Background

1. The Commission submitted the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes to the Council on 17 November 2007. This proposal was discussed in detail during the Slovenian, the French and the Czech Presidency. When the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, the proposal, which was not yet adopted, became legally obsolete.

2. On 3 February 2011 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime.

3. At the Council meeting on 11 April 2011, a discussion was held on whether intra-EU flights should be included in the scope of the draft Directive. Further to that discussion, the
preparatory work on the draft PNR Directive continued at expert-level at the Working Party on General Matters, including Evaluations on the basis of the indication by the Council that the Directive should allow individual Member States the option to mandate the collection of PNR data with regard to intra-EU flights and that the collection and processing of such data should be subject to the legal regime created by the PNR Directive1.

4. Since the Commission presented its proposal, the Working Party on General Matters, including Evaluations has worked on the proposal for over a year. The scope of the proposal has been thoroughly discussed and further refined and it is now established for which purposes and under which conditions PNR data collected under the Directive can be used. A few Member States have argued in favour of extending the scope of the Directive to other purposes than those presently covered. It is, however, the Presidency’s assessment that a clear and strict purpose limitation is important in order to safeguard the proportionality of the Directive. The Presidency therefore considers that no further changes should be made to the scope of the Directive at the present stage. The review clause in the proposal will, however, allow for future revision of the Directive on the basis of national experiences.

5. The Presidency considers that the extensive work on the file and the considerable efforts that have been made to take all views into account during the Hungarian, Polish and Danish Presidency have resulted in a well-balanced draft Directive.
6. Nine delegations maintain a general scrutiny reservation on the proposal, two have a general reservation and two hold a parliamentary scrutiny reservation.

Retention period

7. The Commission had proposed an initial storage period of 30 days, followed by a further retention period of five years of masked out data. The negotiations have shown that an initial storage period of 30 days is generally considered much too short from an operational point of view. Article 9 has been redrafted in such a way that the overall retention period of 5 years is subdivided into two periods: a first period in which the data are fully accessible and a second period during which the data are masked out and where full disclosure of the data is subject to strict conditions. Taking into consideration the operational needs the initial retention period is set at two years. In comparison the initial retention period in the 2011 EU-Australia Agreement, to which the Council has agreed and the EP has given its consent, is three years.

Inclusion of intra-EU flights

8. Article 1a, which has been drafted in line with the indications given at the Council meeting on 11 April 2011, allows Member States to apply this Directive to all or selected intra-EU flights. Hence, the Article allows any Member State to collect PNR data from those intra-EU flights it considers necessary in order to prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute serious crime or terrorism. It thus constitutes a compromise between those Member States that are in favour of mandatory inclusion of all intra-EU flights and those that are opposed to any inclusion of intra-EU flights.

9. The Presidency considers the above solutions as part of a package, which constitutes a compromise between those Member States which would prefer to limit the impact of the collection and processing of PNR data and those Member States which are in favour of an extension of the scope of the collection and processing of PNR data. At the Coreper meeting of 18 April 2012 some Member States maintained for the time being their reservations on the issues of retention periods and intra-EU flights. However, only three delegations indicated that they could not accept the overall package as a basis for commencing negotiations with the EP.

10. In view of the above, the Presidency invites the Council to confirm the compromise text set out in the Annex as a basis for starting the negotiations with the Parliament.

ANNEX

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
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 Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) 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 Committee2,
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions3,
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

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’s proposal, which had not been adopted by the Council by that date, became obsolete.

(2) The `Stockholm Programme An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens’4 calls on the Commission to present a proposal for the use of PNR data to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorism and serious crime.

(3) In its Communication of 21 September 2010 “*n the global approach to transfers of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to third countries” the Commission outlined certain core elements of a Union policy in this area.

(4) Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of air carriers to communicate passenger data5 regulates the transfer of advance passenger data by air carriers to the competent national authorities for the purpose of improving border controls and combating illegal immigration.

(5) PNR data are necessary to effectively prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime and thus enhance internal security, inter alia by comparing them with various databases of persons and objects sought, to construct evidence and, where relevant, to find associates of criminals and unravel criminal networks.
(6) ….

(7) PNR data enable to identify persons who were previously “unknown”, i.e. persons previously unsuspected of involvement in terrorism or serious crime, but whom an analysis of the data suggests may be involved in such crime and who should therefore be subject to further examination by the competent authorities. By using PNR data it is possible to address the threat of terrorism and serious crime from a different perspective than through the processing of other categories of personal data. However, in order to ensure that the processing of data of innocent and unsuspected persons remains as limited as possible, the aspects of the use of PNR data relating to the creation and application of assessment criteria should be further limited to terrorist offences and relevant forms of serious crime. Furthermore, the assessment criteria shall be defined in a manner which ensures that as few innocent people as possible are identified by the system.

(8) Air carriers already collect and process PNR data from their passengers for their own commercial purposes. This Directive should not impose any obligation on air carriers to collect or retain any additional data from passengers or to impose any obligation on passengers to provide any data in addition to that already being provided to air carriers.

(9) Some air carriers retain any collected advance passenger information (API) data as part of the PNR data, while others do not. The use of PNR data together with API data has added value in assisting Member States in verifying the identity of an individual and thus reinforcing their law enforcement value and minimising the risk of carrying out checks and investigations on innocent people. It is therefore important to ensure that, where air carriers collect API data, they should transfer it, irrespective of whether the API data is retained as part of the PNR data or not.

(10) In order to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime, it is essential that all Member States introduce provisions laying down obligations on air carriers operating extra EU-flights, and if the Member State wishes to do so also on air carriers operating intra EU-flights, to transfer any collected PNR and API data. These provisions should be without prejudice to Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data.

(11) The processing of personal data must be proportionate to the specific security goals pursued by this Directive.

(12) The definition of terrorist offences applied in this Directive should be the same as in Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism6 and the definition of serious crime applied in this Directive should be the same as in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedure between Member States7. The list of relevant serious crime with relation to which PNR data may be used for the creation and application of assessment criteria should be based on Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

(13) PNR data should be transmitted to a single designated unit (Passenger Information Unit) in the relevant Member State, so as to ensure clarity and reduce costs to air carriers. The Passenger Information Unit may have different locations in one Member State and Member States may also jointly set up one Passenger Information Unit.

(13a) It is desirable that co-financing of the costs related to the establishment of the national Passenger Information Units will be provided for under the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management as part of the Internal Security Fund.

(14) The contents of any lists of required PNR data to be obtained by a Passenger Information Unit should be drawn up with the objective of reflecting the legitimate requirements of public authorities to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences or serious crime, thereby improving internal security within the Union as well as protecting the fundamental rights of persons, notably privacy and the protection of personal data. Such lists should not be based on a person’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health or sexual life. The PNR data should contain details on the passenger’s reservation and travel itinerary which enable competent authorities to identify air passengers representing a threat to internal security.

(15) There are two possible methods of data transfer currently available: the `pull’ method, under which the competent authorities of the Member State requiring the data can reach into (access) the air carrier’s reservation system and extract (`pull’) a copy of the required data, and the `push’ method, under which air carriers transfer (`push’) the required PNR data to the authority requesting them, thus allowing air carriers to retain control of what data is provided. The `push’ method is considered to offer a higher degree of data protection and should be mandatory for all air carriers.

(16) The Commission supports the International Civil Aviation *rganisation (ICA*) guidelines on PNR. These guidelines should thus be the basis for adopting the supported data formats for transfers of PNR data by air carriers to Member States. This justifies that such supported data formats, as well as the relevant protocols applicable to the transfer of data from air carriers should be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure provided for in Regulation (EU) No182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 lying down rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers8.

(17) The Member States should take all necessary measures to enable air carriers to fulfil their obligations under this Directive. Dissuasive, effective and proportionate penalties, including financial ones, should be provided for by Member States against those air carriers failing to meet their obligations regarding the transfer of PNR data.

(18) Each Member State should be responsible for assessing the potential threats related to terrorist offences and serious crime.

(19) Taking fully into consideration the right to the protection of personal data and the right to non-discrimination, no decision that produces an adverse legal effect on a person or seriously affects him/her should be taken only by reason of the automated processing of PNR data. Moreover, in respect of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union no such decision should discriminate on any grounds such as a person’s sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.

(20) Member States should share with other Member States the PNR data that they receive where this is necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. The provisions of this Directive should be without prejudice to other Union instruments on the exchange of information between police and judicial authorities, including Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police *ffice (Europol)9 and Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 September 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union10. Such exchange of PNR data between law enforcement and judicial authorities should be governed by the rules on police and judicial cooperation.

(21) The period during which PNR data are to be retained should be proportionate to the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. Because of the nature of the data and their uses, it is necessary that the PNR data are retained for a sufficiently long period for carrying out analysis and for use in investigations. In order to avoid disproportionate use, it is necessary that, after an initial period, the data are depersonalised through masking out and that the full PNR data are only accessible under very strict and limited conditions.

(22) Where specific PNR data have been transmitted to a competent authority and are used in the context of specific criminal investigations or prosecutions, the retention of such data by the competent authority should be regulated by the national law of the Member State, irrespective of the retention periods set out in this Directive.

(23) The processing of PNR data domestically in each Member State by the Passenger Information Unit and by competent authorities should be subject to a standard of protection of personal data under their national law which is in line with Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters11.

(24) Taking into consideration the right to the protection of personal data, the rights of the data subjects concerning the processing of their PNR data, such as the right of access, the right of rectification, erasure and blocking, as well as the rights to compensation and judicial remedies, should be in line with Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

(25) Taking into account the right of passengers to be informed of the processing of their personal data, Member States should ensure they are provided with accurate information about the collection of PNR data and their transfer to the Passenger Information Unit.

(25a) This Directive allows the principle of public access to official documents to be taken into account.

(26) Transfers of PNR data by Member States to third countries should be permitted only on a case-by-case basis and in compliance with Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. To ensure the protection of personal data, such transfers should be subject to additional requirements relating to the purpose and the necessity of the transfer.

(27) The national supervisory authority that has been established in implementation of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA should also be responsible for advising on and monitoring of the application and of the provisions adopted by the Member States pursuant to this Directive.

(28) This Directive does not affect the possibility for Member States to provide, under their domestic law, for a system of collection and handling of PNR data for purposes other than those specified in this Directive, or from transportation providers other than those specified in the Directive, provided that such domestic law respects the Union acquis.

(29) This Directive is without prejudice to the current Union rules on the way border controls are carried out or with the Union rules regulating entry and exit from the territory of the Union.

(30) As a result of the legal and technical differences between national provisions concerning the processing of personal data, including PNR, air carriers are and will be faced with different requirements regarding the types of information to be transmitted, as well as the conditions under which this information needs to be provided to competent national authorities. These differences may be prejudicial to effective cooperation between the competent national authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences or serious crime.

(31) Since the objectives of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, and can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(32) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination as protected by Articles 8, 7 and 21 thereof and has to be implemented accordingly. The Directive is compatible with data protection principles and its provisions are in line with the Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. Furthermore, and in order to comply with the proportionality principle, the Directive, on specific issues, will have stricter rules on data protection than the Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA.

(33) In particular, the scope of this Directive is as limited as possible, as it allows retention of PNR data in the Passenger Information Units for period of time not exceeding 5 years, after which the data should be deleted, as the data should be depersonalised through masking out after an initial period, and as the collection and use of sensitive data is prohibited. In order to ensure efficiency and a high level of data protection, Member States are required to ensure that an independent national supervisory authority is responsible for advising and monitoring the way PNR data are processed. All processing of PNR data should be logged or documented for the purpose of verification of its legality, self-monitoring and ensuring proper data integrity and security of the processing. Member States should also ensure that passengers are clearly and precisely informed about the collection of PNR data and their rights.

(34) In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol (No 21) on the position of United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to participate in the adoption and application of this Directive.
(35) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1 Subject matter and scope
1. This Directive provides for the transfer by air carriers of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data of passengers of extra-EU flights to and from the Member States, as well as the processing of that data.
2. The PNR data collected in accordance with this Directive may be processed only for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime as provided for in Article 4 (2) (a), (b) and (c).

Article 1a Application of the directive to intra-EU flights
1. If a Member State wishes to apply this Directive to intra-EU flights, it shall give notice in writing to the Commission to that end. The Commission shall publish such a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. A Member State may give or revoke such notice at any time after the entry into force of this Directive.
2. Where such a notice is given, all the provisions of this Directive shall apply in relation to intra-EU flights as if they were extra-EU flights and to PNR data from intra-EU flights as if it were PNR data from extra-EU flights.
3. A Member State may decide to apply this Directive only to selected intra-EU flights. In making such a decision the Member State shall select the flights it considers necessary in order to further the purposes of this Directive. The Member State may decide to change the selected intra-EU flights at any time.

Article 2 Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:
(a) `air carrier’ means an air transport undertaking with a valid operating licence or equivalent permitting it to carry out carriage by air of passengers;
(b) `extra-EU flight’ means any scheduled or non-scheduled flight by an air carrier flying from a third country planned to land on the territory of a Member State or from the territory of a Member State planned to land in a third country, including in both cases flights with any stopovers at the territory of Member States or third countries;
(c) `intra-EU flight’ means any scheduled or non-scheduled flight by an air carrier flying from the territory of a Member State planned to land on the territory of one or more of the other Member States, without any stop-overs at the territory/airports of a third country;
(d) `Passenger Name Record’ or’PNR data’ means a record of each passenger’s travel requirements which contains information necessary to enable reservations to be processed and controlled by the booking and participating air carriers for each journey booked by or on behalf of any person, whether it is contained in reservation systems, Departure Control Systems (DCS, the system used to check passengers onto flights) or equivalent systems providing the same functionalities.
(e) `passenger’ means any person, except members of the crew, carried or to be carried in an aircraft with the consent of the air carrier, which is manifested by the persons’ registration in the passengers list and which includes transfer or transit passengers;
(f) `reservation systems’ means the air carrier’s internal reservation system, in which PNR data are collected for the handling of reservations;
(g) `push method’ means the method whereby air carriers transfer PNR data into the database of the authority requesting them;
(h) `terrorist offences’ means the offences under national law referred to in Articles 1 to 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA;
(i) `serious crime’ means the offences under national law referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA if they are punishable by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years under the national law of a Member State;
(k) ‘depersonalising through masking out of data’ means rendering certain data elements of such data invisible to a user without deleting these data elements.

CHAPTER II RESPONSIBILITES OF THE MEMBER STATES

Article 3 Passenger Information Unit
1. Each Member State shall set up or designate an authority competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime or a branch of such an authority to act as its `Passenger Information Unit’ (“PIU”) responsible for collecting PNR data from the air carriers, storing them, processing them and transmitting the PNR data or the result of the processing thereof to the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. The PIU is also responsible for the exchange of PNR data or the result of the processing thereof with PIUs of other Member States in accordance with Article 7. Its staff members may be seconded from competent public authorities. It shall be provided with adequate resources in order to fulfil its tasks.

2. Two or more Member States may establish or designate a single authority to serve as their Passenger Information Unit. Such a Passenger Information Unit shall be established in one of the participating Member States and shall be considered the national Passenger Information Unit of all such participating Member States. The participating Member States shall agree on the detailed rules for the operation of the Passenger Information Unit and shall respect the requirements laid down in this Directive.

3. Each Member State shall notify the Commission within one month of the establishment or designation of the Passenger Information Unit thereof. It may at any time modify its notification. The Commission shall publish this information, including any modifications of it, in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 4 Processing of PNR data
1. The PNR data transferred by the air carriers shall be collected by the Passenger Information
Unit of the relevant Member State, as provided for in Article 6. Should the PNR data transferred by air carriers include data beyond those listed in Annex I, the Passenger Information Unit shall delete such data immediately upon receipt.
2. The Passenger Information Unit shall process PNR data only for the following purposes:
(a) carrying out an assessment of the passengers prior to their scheduled arrival to or departure from the Member State in order to identify persons who require further examination by the competent authorities referred to in Article 5, in view of the fact that such persons may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious crime.
(i) In carrying out such an assessment the Passenger Information Unit may compare PNR data against databases relevant for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, including databases on persons or objects sought or under alert, in accordance with Union, international and national rules applicable to such databases.
(ii) When carrying out an assessment of persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious crime listed in Annex II to this Directive, the Passenger Information Unit may also process PNR data against pre-determined criteria.
Member States shall ensure that any positive match resulting from automated processing of PNR data conducted under point (a) of paragraph 2 is individually reviewed by non-automated means in order to verify whether the competent authority referred to in Article 5 needs to take action in accordance with national law;
(b) responding, on a case-by-case basis, to duly reasoned requests from competent authorities to provide PNR data and process PNR data in specific cases for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of a terrorist offence or serious crime, and to provide the competent authorities with the results of such processing; and
(c) analysing PNR data for the purpose of updating or creating new criteria for carrying out assessments referred to point (a) (ii) in order to identify any persons who may be involved in a terrorist offence or serious crimes listed in Annex II.
3. The assessment of the passengers prior to their scheduled arrival or departure from the
Member State carried out against pre-determined criteria referred to in point (a)(ii) of paragraph 2 shall be carried out in a non-discriminatory manner on the basis of assessment criteria established by its Passenger Information Unit. Member States shall ensure that the assessment criteria are set by the Passenger Information Units, in cooperation with the competent authorities referred to in Article 5. The assessment criteria shall in no circumstances be based on a person’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health or sexual life.
4. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall transmit the PNR data or the results
of the processing of PNR data of the persons identified in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 2 for further examination to the competent authorities of the same Member State referred to in Article 5. Such transfers shall only be made on a case-by-case basis.
5. The consequences of the assessments of passengers referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2
shall not jeopardise the right of entry of persons enjoying the Union right of free movement into the territory of the Member State concerned as laid down in Directive 2004/38/EC. In addition, the consequences of such assessments, where these are carried out in relation to intra-EU flights between Member States to which the Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders12 applies, shall comply with that Code.

12 OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 1.

Article 5 Competent authorities
1. Each Member State shall adopt a list of the competent authorities entitled to request or receive PNR data or the result of the processing of PNR data from the Passenger Information Units in order to examine that information further or take appropriate action for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious crime.
2. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall be competent for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime.
3. For the purpose of Article 7(4), each Member State shall notify the list of its competent authorities to the Commission eighteen months after entry into force of this Directive at the latest, and may at any time update this notification. The Commission shall publish this information, as well as any modifications of it, in the Official Journal of the European Union.
4. The PNR data and the result of the processing of PNR data received from the Passenger Information Unit may be further processed by the competent authorities of the Member States only for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting terrorist offences or serious crime.
5. Paragraph 4 shall be without prejudice to national law enforcement or judicial powers where other violations of criminal law, or indications thereof, are detected in the course of enforcement action further to such processing.
6. The competent authorities shall not take any decision that produces an adverse legal effect on a person or significantly affects a person only by reason of the automated processing of PNR data.

Article 6
Obligations on air carriers on transfer of data
1. Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that air carriers transfer (‘push’) the PNR data as defined in Article 2(d) and specified in Annex I, to the extent that such data are already collected by them, to the database of the Passenger Information Unit of the Member State on the territory of which the flight will land and/or from the territory of which the flight will depart. Where the flight is code-shared between one or more air carriers, the obligation to transfer the PNR data of all passengers on the flight shall be on the air carrier that operates the flight. Where an extra-EU flight has one or more stopovers at the airports of different Member States, air carriers shall transfer the PNR data of all passengers to the Passenger Information Units of all the Member States concerned. This also applies where an intra-EU flight has one or more stopovers at the airports of different Member States, but only in relation to Member States which are collecting PNR data.
1a. In case the air carriers have collected any advance passenger information (API) data listed under item (18) of Annex 1 to this directive but do not retain these data as part of the PNR data, Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that air carriers also transfer (‘push’) these data to the Passenger Information Unit of the Member State referred to in paragraph 1. In case of such transfer, all the provisions of this Directive shall apply in relation to these API data as if they were part of the PNR data.
2. Air carriers shall transfer PNR data by electronic means using the common protocols and supported data formats to be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Articles 13 and 14, or, in the event of technical failure, by any other appropriate means ensuring an appropriate level of data security:
(a) once 24 to 48 hours before the scheduled time for flight departure; and
(b) once immediately after flight closure, that is once the passengers have boarded the aircraft in preparation for departure and it is no longer possible for passengers to board or leave.
3. Member States shall permit air carriers to limit the transfer referred to in point (b) of paragraph 2 to updates of the transfer referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2.
4. On a case-by-case basis and where access to PNR data is necessary to respond to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime, air carriers shall, upon request from a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with the procedures provided under national law, transfer PNR data at other points in time than those mentioned in paragraph 2(a) and (b).

Article 7
Exchange of information between Member States
1. Member States shall ensure that, with regard to persons identified by a Passenger Information Unit in accordance with Article 4(2)(a), the PNR data or the result of any processing thereof is transmitted by that Passenger Information Unit to the corresponding units of other Member States where it considers such transfer to be necessary for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences, or serious crime. The Passenger Information Units of the receiving Member States shall transmit the received information to their competent authorities in accordance with Article 4(4).
2. The Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall have the right to request, if necessary, the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter’s database and have not yet been depersonalised through masking out under Article 9(2) and, if necessary, also the result of any processing thereof, if it has already been prepared pursuant to Article 4(2)(a). The duly reasoned request for such data may be based on any one or a combination of data elements, as deemed necessary by the requesting Passenger Information Unit for a specific case of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences or serious crime. Passenger Information Units shall provide the requested data as soon as practicable. In case the requested data have been depersonalised through masking out in accordance with Article 9(2) the Passenger Information Unit shall only provide the full PNR data where it is reasonably believed that it is necessary for the purpose of Article 4(2)(b) and only when authorised to do so by an authority competent under Article 9(3).
3. (…)
4. Only when necessary in cases of emergency and under the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 may the competent authorities of a Member State request directly the Passenger Information Unit of any other Member State to provide it with PNR data that are kept in the latter’s database. The requests from the competent authorities, a copy of which shall always be sent to the Passenger Information Unit of the requesting Member State, shall be reasoned. In all other cases the competent authorities shall channel their requests through the Passenger Information Unit of their own Member State.
5. Exceptionally, where access to PNR data is necessary to respond to an specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime, the Passenger Information Unit of a Member State shall at any time have the right to request the Passenger Information Unit of another Member State to obtain PNR data in accordance with article 6(4) and provide it to the requesting Passenger Information Unit.
6. Exchange of information under this Article may take place using any existing channels for cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States. The language used for the request and the exchange of information shall be the one applicable to the channel used. Member States shall, when making their notifications in accordance with Article 3(3), also inform the Commission with details of the contact points to which requests may be sent in cases of emergency. The Commission shall communicate to the Member States the notifications received.

Article 8 Transfer of data to third States
A Member State may transfer PNR data as well as the results of the processing of such data stored by the Passenger Information Unit in accordance with Article 9 to a third State only on a case-bycase basis and if-
(a) the conditions laid down in Article 13 of Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA are fulfilled;
(b) it is necessary for the purposes of this Directive as specified in Article 1(2);
(c) the third State agrees to transfer the data to another third country only where it is necessary for the purposes of this Directive as specified in Article 1(2) and only with the express authorisation of the Member State that provided the third State with the data; and
(d) similar conditions as those laid down in Article 7(2) are fulfilled.

Article 9 Period of data retention
1. Member States shall ensure that the PNR data provided by the air carriers to the Passenger
Information Unit are retained in a database at the Passenger Information Unit for a period of five years after their transmission to the Passenger Information Unit of the Member State on whose territory the flight is landing or departing.
2. Upon expiry of a period of two years after the transfer of the PNR data as referred to in
paragraph 1, the PNR data shall be depersonalised through masking out of the following data elements which could serve to directly identify the passenger to whom the PNR data relate:
1. Name (s), including the names of other passengers on PNR travelling together;
2. Address and contact information;
3. All forms of payment information, including billing address, to the extent that it contains any information which could serve to directly identify the passenger to whom PNR relate or any other persons;
4. Frequent flyer information;
5. General remarks to the extent that it contains any information which could serve to directly identify the passenger to whom the PNR relate; and
6. Any collected advance passenger information.
3. Upon expiry of the two-year period referred to in paragraph 2, disclosure of the full PNR data shall be permitted only where it is reasonably believed that it is necessary for the purpose of Article 4(2)(b) and only when approved by a judicial authority or by another national authority competent under national law to verify whether the conditions for disclosure are fulfilled.

4. Member States shall ensure that the PNR data are deleted upon expiry of the period specified in paragraph 1. This obligation shall be without prejudice to cases where specific PNR data have been transferred to a competent authority and are used in the context of specific case for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution, in which case the retention of such data by the competent authority shall be regulated by the national law of the Member State.

5. The result of the processing referred to in Article 4(2)(a) shall be kept by the Passenger
Information Unit only as long as necessary to inform the competent authorities of a positive match. Where the result of an automated processing has, further to individual review by non-automated means as referred to in Article 4(2)(a) last subparagraph, proven to be negative, it may, however, be stored so as to avoid future `false’ positive matches for as long as the underlying data have not yet been deleted in accordance with paragraph 1.

Article 10 Penalties against air carriers
Member States shall ensure, in conformity with their national law, that dissuasive, effective and proportionate penalties, including financial penalties, are provided for against air carriers which, do not transmit the data as provided for in Article 6, or do not do so in the required format or otherwise infringe the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive.

Article 11 Protection of personal data
1. Each Member State shall provide that, in respect of all processing of personal data pursuant to this Directive, every passenger shall have the same right to access, the right to rectification, erasure and blocking, the right to compensation and the right to judicial redress as those adopted under the national law implementing Articles 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. The provisions of Articles 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA shall therefore be applicable.
2. Each Member State shall provide that the provisions adopted under the national law to
implement Articles 21 and 22 of the Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA regarding confidentiality of processing and data security shall also apply to all processing of personal data pursuant to this Directive.
3. Any processing of PNR data revealing a person’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical belief, trade union membership, health or sexual life shall be prohibited. In the event that PNR data revealing such information are received by Passenger Information Unit they shall be deleted without delay.
4. All processing, including receipt of PNR data from air carriers and all transfers of PNR data by Passenger Information Units and all requests by competent authorities or Passenger Information Units of other Member States and third countries, even if refused, shall be logged or documented by the Passenger Information Unit concerned and the competent authorities for the purposes of verification of the lawfulness of the data processing, self-monitoring and ensuring proper data integrity and security of data processing, in particular by the national data protection supervisory authorities. These logs shall be kept for a period of five years unless the underlying data have not yet been deleted in accordance with Article 9(4) at the expiry of those five years, in which case the logs shall be kept until the underlying data are deleted.
5. Member States shall ensure that air carriers, their agents or other ticket sellers for the carriage of passengers on air service inform passengers of flights at the time of booking a flight and at the time of purchase of a ticket in a clear and precise manner about the transmission data to the Passenger Information Unit, the purposes of their processing, the period of data retention, their possible use to prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime, the possibility of exchanging and sharing such data and their data protection rights, in particular the right to complain to the competent national data protection supervisory authority. The same information shall be made available by the Member States to the public.
6. Without prejudice to Article 10, Member States shall in particular lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties to be imposed in case of infringements of the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive.

Article 12 National supervisory authority
Each Member State shall provide that the national supervisory authority or authorities established to implement Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA shall also be responsible for advising on and monitoring the application within its territory of the provisions adopted by the Member States pursuant to the present Directive. The further provisions of Article 25 Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA shall be applicable.

CHAPTER IV IMPLEMENTING MEASURES

Article 13 Common protocols and supported data formats
1. All transfers of PNR data by air carriers to the Passenger Information Units for the purposes
of this Directive shall be made by electronic means or, in the event of technical failure, by any other appropriate means, for a period of one year following the adoption of the common protocols and supported data formats in accordance with Article 14.
2. Once the period of one year from the date of adoption, for the first time, of the common
protocols and supported data formats by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3, has elapsed, all transfers of PNR data by air carriers to the Passenger Information Units for the purposes of this Directive shall be made electronically using secure methods in the form of those accepted common protocols which shall be common to all transfers to ensure the security of the data during transfer, and in a supported data format to ensure their readability by all parties involved. All air carriers shall be required to select and identify to the Passenger Information Unit the common protocol and data format that they intend to use for their transfers.
3. The list of accepted common protocols and supported data formats shall be drawn up taking due account of ICAO regulations and, if need be, adjusted, by the Commission by means of implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14(2).
4. As long as the accepted common protocols and supported data formats referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are not available, paragraph 1 shall remain applicable.
5. Each Member State shall ensure that the necessary technical measures are adopted to be able to use the common protocols and data formats within one year from the date referred to in paragraph 2.

Article 14 Committee procedure
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That Committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. The Commission shall not adopt the draft implementing act when no opinion is delivered by the Committee and the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.

CHAPTER V FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 15 Transposition
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive at the latest 36 months after the entry into force of this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 17 Review
1. The Council shall, at the appropriate level, discuss regularly the practical experiences and relevant issues within the scope and subject matter of the Directive.
2. On the basis of these discussions as well as other information provided by the Member States, including the statistical information referred to in Article 18 (2), the Commission shall undertake a review of the operation of this Directive and:
(a) within two years after the date mentioned in Article 15(1) submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the feasibility and necessity of including all or selected intra-EU flights in the scope of this Directive on a mandatory basis, taking into account the experience gained by Member States, especially those Member States that in accordance with Article 1a collect PNR with regard to intra-EU flights,
(b) within four years after the date mentioned in Article 15(1) submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on all other elements of this Directive and on the feasibility and necessity of including transportation providers other than air carriers in the scope of this Directive, taking into account the experience gained by Member States, especially those Member States that collect PNR from other transportation providers.
3. If appropriate, in light of the review referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission shall make a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and the Council with a view to amending this Directive.

Article 18 Statistical data

1. Member States shall provide on a yearly basis the Commission with a set of statistical information on PNR data provided to the Passenger Information Units. These statistics shall not contain any personal data.
2. The statistics shall as a minimum cover:
1. total number of passengers whose PNR data were collected and exchanged;
2. number of passengers identified for further scrutiny;
3. number of subsequent law enforcement actions that were taken involving the use of PNR data;
3. On a yearly basis, the Commission shall provide the Council with cumulative statistics referred to in Article 18(1).

Article 19 Relationship to other instruments
1. Member States may continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements
between themselves on exchange of information between competent authorities, in force when this Directive is adopted, in so far as such agreements or arrangements are compatible with this Directive.
2. This Directive is without prejudice to any obligations and commitments of Member States or
of the Union by virtue of bilateral and/or multilateral agreements with third countries.

Article 20 Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.
Done at Brussels,
For the European Parliament For the Council
The President The President

ANNEX I Passenger Name Record data as far as collected by air carriers
(1) PNR record locator
(2) Date of reservation/issue of ticket
(3) Date(s) of intended travel
(4) Name(s)
(5) Address and contact information (telephone number, e-mail address)
(6) All forms of payment information, including billing address
(7) Complete travel itinerary for specific PNR
(8) Frequent flyer information
(9) Travel agency/travel agent
(10) Travel status of passenger, including confirmations, check-in status, no show or go show information
(11) Split/divided PNR information
(12) General remarks (including all available information on unaccompanied minors under 18 years, such as name and gender of the minor, age, language(s) spoken, name and contact details of guardian on departure and relationship to the minor, name and contact details of guardian on arrival and relationship to the minor, departure and arrival agent)
(13) Ticketing field information, including ticket number, date of ticket issuance and one-way tickets, Automated Ticket Fare Quote fields
(14) Seat number and other seat information
(15) Code share information
(16) All baggage information
(17) Number and other names of travellers on PNR
(18) Any Advance Passenger Information (API) data collected (inter alia document type, document number, nationality, country of issuance, date of document expiration, family name, given name, gender, date of birth, airline, flight number, departure date, arrival date, departure port, arrival port, departure time, arrival time)
(19) All historical changes to the PNR listed in numbers 1 to 18.

ANNEX II
1. participation in a criminal organisation,
2. trafficking in human beings,
3. sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
4. illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
5. illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
6. fraud,
7. laundering of the proceeds of crime,
8. computer-related crime,
9. environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
10. facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
11. illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
12. kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
13. organised and armed robbery,
14. illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
15. forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
16. illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
17. illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
18. unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
19. sabotage, and
20. trafficking in stolen vehicles.

From bad to worse? On the Commission and the Council’s rule of law initiatives

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON EU LAW ANALYSIS
Monday, 19 January 2015

by Dimitry Kochenov* and Laurent Pech**
*Professor of EU Constitutional Law at the University of Groningen and Visiting Professor of Private Law at the Universita degli studi di Torino
**Jean Monnet Professor of EU Public Law, Head of the Law and Politics Department at Middlesex University London

The rule of law is one of the fundamental values on which the EU is founded according to Article 2 TEU. Faced with a rising number of ‘rule of law crises’ in a number of EU countries, the Commission adopted a new ‘pre-Article 7’ procedure last March in order to address any instance where there is a evidence of a systemic threat to the rule of law. Having criticised the Commission’s initiative primarily on the (unconvincing) ground that it would breach the principle of conferral which governs the allocation of powers between the EU and its Member States, the Council proposed its own solution: a rule of law dialogue between national governments and to be held once a year in Brussels.

Both initiatives, and in particular, the Council’s, appear grossly inadequate to tackle the problem of ‘rule of law backsliding post EU accession’ to quote Frans Timmermans, the First Vice-President of the Commission in charge inter alia of the Rule of Law.

Let us begin with the Commission’s proposal. The rationale underlying its new mechanism is that the current EU legal framework is ill designed when it comes to addressing internal, systemic threats to this principle and more generally, to EU values. The former President of the European Commission himself called in 2013 for a ‘better developed set of instruments’ that would fill the space that exists at present between the Commission’s infringement powers laid down in Articles 258–260 TFEU, and the so-called ‘nuclear option’ (suspension of a Member State’s EU membership) laid down in Article 7 TEU. Both procedures suffer indeed from a number of procedural and substantive shortcomings, with the consequence that Article 7 TEU has never been triggered whereas the Commission’s infringement powers have proved ineffective to remedy systemic violations of EU values.

Numerous proposals were made like prior to the publication of the Commission’s Communication last March. These proposals would appear however to have been were found too ‘radical’ for the Commission which decided instead to put forward an eminently ‘light touch’ mechanism (previous analysis by Steve Peers is available here). This new rule of law mechanism builds on and complements an already existing – albeit never used – procedure, the ‘nuclear option’ referred above and on the basis of which the Council may theoretically suspend certain EU rights of the ‘guilty’ Member State such as voting rights.

In a nutshell, the Commission’s new mechanism takes the form of an early-warning tool to enable the Commission to enter into a structured dialogue with the Member State concerned to prevent the escalation of systemic threats to the rule of law preceding the eventual triggering of Article 7 TEU. This ‘pre-Article 7’ mechanism does not exclude a parallel recourse to the infringement procedure.

In practice, the Commission’s new rule of law mechanism rests on three main stages:

(1) The Commission will first have to assess whether there are clear, preliminary indications of a systemic threat to the rule of law in a particular Member State and send a ‘rule of law opinion’ to the government of this Member State should it be of the opinion that there are;

(2) Commission’s recommendation: In a situation where no appropriate actions are taken, a ‘rule of law recommendation’ may be addressed to the authorities of this country, with the option of including specific indications on ways and measures to resolve the situation within a prescribed deadline;

(3) Finally, the Commission is supposed to monitor how the relevant Member State is implementing the recommendation mentioned above. Should there be no satisfactory implementation, the Commission would then have the possibility to trigger the application of Article 7 TEU.

The Commission’s new pre-Article 7 procedure is anything but revolutionary. In essence it merely requires any ‘suspected’ Member State to engage in a dialogue with no new automatic or direct legal consequences should the Member State fail to agree with any of the recommendations adopted by the Commission. Undoubtedly, Article 7(1) TEU already and necessarily implicitly empowers the Commission to investigate any potential risk of a serious breach of the EU’s values by giving it the competence to submit a reasoned proposal to the Council should the Commission be of the view that Article 7 TEU ought to be triggered on this basis. The criticism expressed by the Council’s Legal Service, which has criticised the Commission for overstepping its powers, would therefore appear particularly misplaced. The Commission’s framework is procedurally sound, no Treaty change is required and for the first time, a wide range of expert bodies is to be consulted: so far so good one may be tempted to say.

This bright picture however fades a great deal as soon as one focuses on the likely effectiveness of this new procedure, which is based on the presumption that a dialogue between the Commission and the Member State is bound to produce positive results. The validity of this presumption is highly questionable. Indeed, once we move towards really problematic cases, i.e. the countries where the ruling élite has made a conscious choice not to comply with EU values, engaging in a rule of law dialogue is unlikely to be fruitful. Worse still: the confidential nature of the whole discussion to be held between the Commission and the Member State under investigation will prevent a successful ‘name-and-shame’ environment from crystallising. The non-legally binding nature of the ‘rule of law recommendation’ to be addressed to the authorities of the country under scrutiny, and the non-automatic recourse to Article 7 TEU should the recalcitrant Member State fail to comply, further increase the likelihood of ineffective outcomes.

The Council’s negative response to the Commission’s proposal leaves one rather pessimistic about the chance of ever seeing the Commission activating its new rule of law framework. Indeed, rather then supporting the Commission’s rule of law framework, the Council decided instead to establish an annual rule of law dialogue to be based ‘on the principles of objectivity, non discrimination and equal treatment of all Member States’ and to be ‘conducted on a non partisan and evidence-based approach’. The Council’s response is as disappointing as it is unsurprising considering the reported unease of several national governments at the idea of letting any independent EU body looking into rule of law matters beyond the areas governed by EU law. The British government, for instance, has made clear its opposition to the Commission’s framework on three main grounds: It would be superfluous to the extent that the European Council and the Council of Europe would already monitor rule of law compliance within EU Member States; it would undermine the role of the Member States within the Council of the EU and finally, that the Commission and the Council would have already been successful through informal dialogue and lobbying in addressing in recent concerns on the rule of law in Member States.

Suffice it to refer to recent events in Hungary to understand that this last point is rather ludicrous. The point about the possible duplication of existing mechanisms is similarly unconvincing. To put it concisely, if multiple bodies gather data and monitor some specific aspects of EU Member States practice in relation to the rule of law, democracy and human rights, no European body currently subjects EU countries to a specific, country-based and permanent monitoring and assessment of their adherence to the rule of law broadly understood (for an overview of existing monitoring mechanisms within the Council of Europe, the EU and the UN, see this very useful report from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law). For instance, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, whose work is unanimously praised, is primarily a consultative body. In the end, the criticism directed at the Commission’s proposal essentially stems from the reluctance of some national governments, especially those whose rule of law records are highly questionable, to accept any potential effective form of supranational monitoring which could result in the adoption of legally binding recommendations and/or sanctions.

Viewed in this light, it is hardly surprising that while the Commission’s proposal suffers from many a flaw, the Council’s response goes nowhere near enough what is required to address current challenges. The latest buzzwords are used to hide an unwillingness to meaningfully act. For instance, the Council calls for an evidence-based approach but what will this mean in practice and who will in charge of collecting this evidence and analysing it? Similarly, the dialogue is supposed to take place in the Council ‘following an inclusive approach’, the substance of which is nowhere explained. More fundamentally, the Council is seeking to use a soft instrument, which has regularly been criticised precisely for its ineffectiveness when used by the EU to promote its values abroad. To put it concisely, the EU has set up close to forty ‘human rights dialogues’ with third countries but evidence of substantial and concrete achievements is thin on the ground. One would have hoped a different, stricter approach for any Member State whose authorities have made a conscious political choice of undermining EU values.

To conclude, the Commission and the Council’s initiatives may leave one deeply disappointed considering the serious nature of the internal challenges faced on the rule of law front. When comparing the two initiatives, one may however argue that the Commission’s is much less half-hearted and, thus, at least less counter-productive, than the Council’s, which does not simply represent the triumph of empty rhetoric over genuine action but also unfortunately undermines the future legitimacy of any Commission attempt to trigger its new pre-Article 7 procedure. For a more detailed analysis, we would refer interested readers to our forthcoming Schuman Foundation policy paper, which is due to be published this spring in both English and French.

A Tale of Two States: Rule of Law in the Age of Terrorism

ORIGINAL PUBLISHED ON VERFASSUNGSblog

by Giovanna DE MINICO

As a reaction to the recent terrorist attacks in France, several EU member states as well as the EU itself have announced significant anti-terrorism measures.

Even well before the French facts, the UK proposed to isolate suspected terrorists, withdrawing and confiscating their passports to prevent them from entering and leaving the country. This is in line with the aggressive policies of both theRegulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

France, while rhethorically distancing itself from the American Patriot Act, seems to do substantially the same, as President François Hollande announced that he wants to close the online websites suspected of fomenting terrorism. Not even the United States has adopted a measure of such gravity, suffocating the freedom of speech and thought. The US may be responsible for the distant and pervasive control of our private life but it still insists on an open market place of ideas as an undefeatable antidote against the violence spreading germs.

Germany has announced, together with the suspension of the ID card, based on the English model, other measures aimed to reinforce the dialogue between police and intelligence, upholding a demand for cooperation raised by multiple European voices.

The European Union seems to have set definitely aside the very strong querellebetween privacy and security with regard to the subject-matter of PNR, i.e. the personal number record of passengers. This is an ID of single passengers which put together miscellaneous data of various nature, from the personal data to the information about how they paid, what they have eaten, which newspaper they have asked for on board or incidentally their sanitary requirements. Clearly, these data, if properly cross-examined, could be very useful to find out their political or religious thoughts.

The duty to collect this new mountain of data would be imposed on the air carriers for a number of years (yet to be defined precisely). What is even more incompatible with the rule of law is the fact that such measure applies to passengers regardless of their inclusion in a suspects’ list. This issue is not new to the European Union. Actually, it dates back to a Directive proposal of 2011, which was rejected by theLibe Commission in 2013 for infringing the right to privacy and has been brought up again by the European Council in August 2014. These days, it seems to be back in the agenda of the European Parliament after the meeting of the interior Ministers recently held in Place Beavau. The debated issue now is focused only on the number of years of the data keeping, because the resistance of privacy supporters, which fired up the debate at the Libe Commission, seems now to have been set aside in the name of security.

Let’s ask ourselves if this mass recording is necessarly for prevention reasons. My opinion is that the demand for public security is not sufficient to justify such action; in fact, keeping this massive amount of information, applying indiscriminately to all the passengers, makes the investigations slow, ill-timed and, often, inutiliter data.Prevention measures, due to their anticipatory character, must be very timely and focused on well selected targets, otherwise they risk to be only effective when an event has already occurred.

The well known criticism related to privacy violations, disproportionate control, lack of protection against discrimination, departure from the constitutional presumption of innocence, remain standing. Furthermore, the objection of the ineffectiveness of the remedy to fullfill the security aims, already raised towards the NSA’s acquisition of the online metadata, could apply also to the PNR.

State of Terror vs. State of Law

After having highlighted the ongoing legal framework, let’s focus on the “State of Terror” on the one side, and the “State of Law” on the other: what they want and how they intend to achieve it.

a) The State of Terror wants to spread chilling fear and make people feel alone and without protection by the State of Law. In this situation of weakness, citizens are ready to surrender their freedom in return to the promise of security, which however no Government could ever completely ensure. To sum up, terrorism has proven to have well understood the lesson of divide et impera.

b) The State of Law should respond by educating its community to the values of legality, tolerance and solidarity. Its duty, in times of fear, is an ethical rather than a police one; it has to make the people leave their isolation and facilitate their social and political inclusion. This action requires concrete actions by political decision-makers.

To the fear, which is the first result of terrorism, the State has to respond with the wisdom of a legislator, which should not act under the pressure of understandable emotional feelings. Any measures have to comply with the principles ofproportionality and precaution, otherwise not only they risk to be erased by the European or national Supreme Courts but they will prove to be meaningless. The recent episodes are evidence that all-encompassing controls such as the online data collection of the real and virtual movements of terrorists have not been able to prevent their criminal actions: controlling everyone is equal to controlling no one.

In a long-time perspective, the European Parliament should make use of its competence from article 83 TFUE to give, along with the Council, a common definition of the crime of terrorism and enact serious, quick and effective measures. This is permitted by article 83; and it is very much to be regretted that this competence conferred on the European Parliament has not been exercised so far.

Last but not least, the State of Law should take cultural action aiming to include heterogeneous people while respecting their diversities. By contrast, the melting-pot method followed so far, that tried to uniform the different ideologies, failed because of the lack of a common values.

The State of Law has not to use the usual categories of the prevalence of Right over Wrong, West over Islam; it should rather develop the cohabitation of the opposites by sharing what we Europeans are still denying to the foreign people: social rights. A State of Law, which shows itself severe in the rules but generous in the co-division of welfare, will be able to compete with the State of Terror. The latter recruits its followers among the desperates, those who feel to be abandoned by the hosting State.

In the light of the above foreigners could choose between a proposal of violence and isolation, made by the State of Terror, and one of cohabitation and solidarity, made by a new European State of Law.

Dieser Text steht unter der Lizenz CC BY NC ND

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode)

Zitiervorschlag: De Minico, Giovanna: A Tale of Two States: Rule of Law in the Age of Terrorism, VerfBlog, 2015/1/24, http://www.verfassungsblog.de/tale-two-states-rule-law-age-terrorism/
Drucken/PDF

The US Senate reveals the truth on renditions and torture, now it’s Europe’s turn.

NB Translated by Yasha Maccanico from an original italian version published on Europeanrights internet site. 

by Armando Spataro[1]

On 9 December 2014, as had been announced the day before by Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, the US Senate released a report of around 500 pages that officially acknowledged all sorts of torture (including water-boarding) and the practice of extraordinary renditions, enacted by the CIA for around a decade within the framework of an unacceptable strategy to fight international terrorism. Moreover, the report consists of a summarised review of an even wider study which is around 6,700 pages long, the rest of which will remain ‘classified’, as is said in jargon, and hence secret. The work by the Senate’s Intelligence Committee monitoring the secret services, on which the report is based, lasted for around five years and included analysis of around 6 million documents.

Thus, practically the whole world had official confirmation of what was already known to an extent and which, according to several commentators, constituted a practice enacted since the years that immediately preceded the 11 September [attacks], when the CIA was headed by George Tenet (from 1997 to 2004), and up until 2009 (hence, also at the time when Tenet’s role was assumed first by Porter Gross and then by Michael Hayden). In any case, these were methods developed with certainty – according to the report – after 11 September. Yet, the truly innovative element did not consist in this practice being revealed, but in its clear and unequivocal condemnation by the United States Senate.

The president of the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, the California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, who had already reported the violation of the computers of the Committee she presided over by the CIA[2] in March 2014, insisted for the immediate publication of this dossier. The senator, who overcame internal resistance even within her party by those who opposed the report’s publication, declared: “We have to divulge it because whoever reads it will act in order for it never to happen again”. The position taken by President Obama was no different, as he stated: “We were not worthy of our values… Torture has not even contributed to making us safer against terrorism. I will continue to use my presidential authority to guarantee that we will never use those methods again”[3]. Brutal and inefficient methods, whose only consequences were summed up by Harry Raid, leader of the outgoing Democratic majority in the Senate, in just a few words:“All of this has just muddied us”.

But the top echelons of the CIA immediately stated that they had done what was asked of them, assuring that everything was lawful.

Hence, it is worth reconstructing the route along which, at a certain point, governments, including European ones, political leaders and many jurists came to claim that acts of torture and the kidnapping of suspected terrorists had a juridical legitimation and, therefore, could be practised.

It all arises from an abstruse juridical theorisation, that of the war on terror, whereby war must be met with war, also because it is a way of producing democracy, so much so that “after the bombing of Falluja, the inhabitants of the destroyed city were happier and voted in great numbers”[4]. It was a theory that was drawn up in the wake of 11 September and had quickly become so popular as to be mentioned using an acronym: “W.o.T.”

In essence, acts of so-called international terrorism supposedly constitute acts of war that may be countered with similar techniques among which kidnappings and torture are included. Of course, it is true that acts of terrorism may also be carried out in times and zones of war, but it is likewise evident that this does not justify that kind of response in any way. In fact, everyone, and not just jurists, knows that in war situations the law for armed conflict situations is applicable as it is laid out in the Geneva Convention, its additional protocols and its further, more general purposes that are found in humanitarian law.

However, within the frame of the WoT principles become flexible, “grey areas” in which rights exist in a limited form become admissible, where any rule subsides or rules are often violated, starting from, for example, the very creation of the category of enemy combatants, that is, of illegal enemy combatants which, according to the view of those who created it, enables terrorist suspects who are “captured” in any part of the world to be denied their fundamental rights.

We owe the creation of this monstruous juridical category to John Woo from the US Department of Justice’s Legal Advice Office, the author of a 42-page memorandum in which Al Qaeda and the entire Taleban regime were included among the illegal enemy combatants, to whom the Geneva Conventions would not be applied.[5]

Moreover, John Yoo later complained (in 2008) in some press articles that the unveiling of his role as counsellor-strategist exposed him to the risk of reprisals, whereas he now claims, with renewed pride and following the publication of the Feinstein report, the authorship of that memorandum. Yoo recently published the book “Point Attack”, in which he redevelops that “emergency law” which was decisive – in his view – after 11 September[6].

Fears that were somewhat similar to those expressed by Woo prior to his more recent coming out, had been voiced by Matthew Waxman, professor at the Columbia Law School and a high ranking official in the staff of the US State Department between 2005 and 2007, who complained about[7] the worldwide release of the photographs that documented the inhumane treatment inflicted upon prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo: «What image are we giving of the fight against terrorism?», he commented.

In reality, using the words of Antonio Cassese, this system constitutes a “juridical limbo”, which is enriched by ad hoc clauses and provisions directed at further legitimating it. Continue reading “The US Senate reveals the truth on renditions and torture, now it’s Europe’s turn.”