Union européenne

Introduction

Les événements de ces dernières années ont montré que l’arrivée de mineurs non accompagnés n’est pas un phénomène passager mais une caractéristique de longue date de la migration vers l’Union européenne qui ne cesse de prendre de l’ampleur. En 2014, les données statistiques ont témoigné d’ une augmentation depuis 2010 avec 24 075 mineurs, soit plus du double par rapport à 2013. C’est, donc, claire que ce phénomène est de plus en plus visible et nécessite un cadre juridique particulier, car le jeune âge de ces mineurs et leur manque d’expérience les exposent souvent à des violations de leurs droits.

 

Les résolutions du Conseil de l’Europe et les directives du Parlement européen mises en oeuvre, ne suffisent pas à garantir les droits de ces migrants, surtout quand les procédures d’identification d’âge, le traitement offert et les structures d’accueil varient d’un État membre à l’autre. À ce titre, le principe de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant garanti par la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant et qui est le fondement de tous les volets d’action prises au niveau européen, n’est pas toujours respecté.

Le but de ce dossier sera, donc, celui de faire une analyse du phénomène en examinant quelles sont les mesures protectrices réellement prises en faveur des MIE en Europe.

Avant de fournir un aperçu des projets de développement mises en oeuvre par les États membres, il est, d’abord, nécessaire comprendre pourquoi les MIE arrivent sur le territoire de l’UE.

 

Les motivations de la migration des MIE

Les raisons qui sont à l’origine du départ des MIE de leur pays peuvent être multiples et elles différent selon qu’on parle de MIE demandeurs d’asile ou MIE ne demandant pas d’asile.

Pour ce qui concerne les MIE demandeurs d’asile, ils échappent souvent de leurs pays d’origine par crainte de persécution, d’atteintes graves, ou violations des droits de l’homme. Ils viennent principalement de pays où la sécurité est extrêmement précaire et les violations des droits de l’homme fréquentes comme en Afghanistan, Érythrée, Syrie, Somalie, Gambie et Maroc.

Les MIE ne demandant pas l’asile, par contre, arrivent généralement en Europe à la recherche d’une vie meilleure : d’un emploi, d’une éducation. Toutefois, certains quittent leur pays pour rejoindre leurs familiales qui sont déjà sur le territoire européen et pour faire ça, ils évitent l’identification dans le premier État membre dans lequel ils arrivent afin de pouvoir continuer leur voyage vers l’État qui leur intéresse, en risquant souvent de devenir victime de traite des êtres humains ou d’exploitation.

Qu’est-ce que l’UE a fait pour prévenir les migrations ?

Le Plan d’action pour les mineurs non accompagnés (2010-2014), qui proposait une approche commune à l’échelle de l’Union européenne, reconnaissait que « la prévention des migrations périlleuses et la traite des enfants constituent la première étape d’une lutte efficace contre le phénomène de la migration des mineurs non accompagnés ». Dans ce but, plusieurs États membres ont financé des projets de prévention et de développement dans les pays tiers afin d’agir sur les causes qui, comme on a vu, sont à la base des migrations. Ils ont investi sur :

 

– L’éducation en construisant des centres d’hébergements et d’éducation dans les pays d’origine dans l’espoir de réduire la pauvreté et augmenter, ainsi, les chances de trouver un emploi (un projet qui a été bien pratiqué surtout par la Belgique, la France, la Hongrie, le Luxembourg et la Slovénie) ;

 

– La prévention du recrutement des enfants soldats. La prévention de la traite des êtres humains à travers des projets de formation d’un personnel spécialisé dans la détection de situation de risque.

 

– La sensibilisation des enfants et leur famille aux phénomènes migratoires et aux risques liés à la migration clandestine ; des actions de renforcement des capacités des autorités nationales.

 

Dans le Rapport de mi-parcours 2012, la Commission a déclaré qu’une coopération stable de l’UE et de ses États membres avec les pays tiers contribuera certainement à une meilleure compréhension de leurs besoins et donnera ainsi un meilleur appui à la conception et à la mise en oeuvre de futurs projets. Mais, elle tient aussi à souligner, que la voie à suivre ne devra pas se limiter tout simplement à des mesures de préventions mais il faudra surtout agir concrètement sur d’autres questions pertinentes telles que le rétablissement des liens familiaux, le rapatriement des enfants en tout sécurité et réduire les risques d’être à nouveau victime de la traite des êtres humains.

 

En plus ce qui est important à ce titre, c’est que l’UE et ses États doivent continuer d’aborder la problématique de la migration des mineurs non accompagnés dans le contexte de la coopération au développement. En effet, un partage plus poussé des informations sur les initiatives menées et les actions planifiées est vital pour optimiser l’utilisation des ressources disponibles, en vue aussi des discussions sur le cadre budgétaire de l’UE « Un budget pour la stratégie Europe 2020 » qui devra conduire à une meilleure coordination des fond externes1.

 

1 “Un budget pour la stratégie Europe 2020”, communication de la Commission au Parlement européen, au Conseil, au Comité économique et social européen et au Comité des régions, COM(2011).

2 Au titre de l’art 13 du Règlement (CE) No 562/2006 du Parlement Européen et du Conseil du 15 mars 2006 établissant un code communautaire relatif au régime de franchissement des frontières par les personnes (Code frontières Schengen). L’Irlande et le Royaume-Uni ne sont pas liés par ce Règlement.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R0562&from=FR

 

Quels sont les procédures d’accueil assurées aux MIE et quelles lacunes législatives de l’UE ?

Lorsque les MIE arrivent aux frontières de l’UE, conformément au règlement Schengen2, doivent satisfaire aux conditions d’entrée qui sont les mêmes pour les ressortissants de pays tiers :

 

– Visa en cours de validité et ;

 

– Un titre de voyage en cours de validité.

 

Concernant les MIE demandeurs d’asile, la situation est assez favorable puisque, au titre de la Convention de Genève (art 33) et de la CEDH, les MIE demandant à entrer sur le territoire d’un État concerné ne peuvent faire l’objet d’une procédure d’éloignement si cette dernière enfreint le principe de non refoulement (l’art 33 de la Convention de 1951 stipule : « Aucun des États contractants n’expulsera ou ne refoulera, de quelque manière que ce soit, un réfugié sur les frontières des territoires où sa vie ou sa liberté serait menacée en raison de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un certain groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques. »).

Ainsi, l’entrée sur le territoire de l’UE pour eux est toujours accordée indépendamment du fait qu’ils satisfassent ou pas les critères requis.

Par contre, pour les MIE qui ne sont pas demandeurs d’asile une distinction peut être établie en fonction de la législation en vigueur dans les États membres qui les accueillent.

Il y a des États (c’est le cas de l’Allemagne, Autriche, Belgique, Croatie, Estonie, Finlande, France , Grèce, Irlande, Lettonie, Lituanie, Luxembourg, Malte, Pays-Bas, Pologne, Portugal, République tchèque, Royaume-Uni, Slovénie, Suède et Norvège) dont la législation leur permet de refuser l’entrée à tous les ressortissants des pays tiers qui n’ont pas de documents, y compris les MIE ne demandant pas d’asile.

 

Ainsi, il y en a des autres, (Bulgarie, Espagne, Hongrie et Italie) qui disposent d’une politique particulière envers les MIE pour des raisons humanitaire et qui accordent toujours aux MIE ne demandant pas d’aile le droit d’entrer sur leur territoire, que les critères d’entrée soient respectés ou non.

En cas d’absence de politique particulière, les MIE ne demandant pas d’asile et n’obéissant pas aux conditions d’entrée sur le territoire, peuvent être contraints au retour dans leurs pays d’origine, conformément aux conditions décrites dans la Directive « retour »3

3Directive “retour » : http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:348:0098:0107:FR:PDF

4 Partenariat de mobilité entre le Royaume du Maroc et l’Union européenne et ses État membre du 1er mars 2013; des négociations sont en cours avec la Tunisie.

C’est donc claire que si déjà normalement les MIE représentent un groupe de RPT (ressortissants de pays tiers) particulièrement vulnérable, qui doit faire face à beaucoup de difficulté en entrant sur un territoire européen et qui doivent lutter toujours pour voire leurs droits fondamentaux respectés , ce discours sera amplifié pour les MIE ne demandant pas d’asile, car ils sont très souvent assimilés à des adultes et de ce fait, ils sont considérés comme des migrants irréguliers pour le pays d’accueil.

La question de la protection des mineurs migrants reste préoccupante au regarde des politiques européennes qui encouragent les États de transit à amplifier la surveillance de leurs frontières afin de décourager les migrants de tenter la traversée. À cet effet, l’UE a prévu des partenariats avec des pays tiers4, exigeant qu’ils concluent des accords de réadmission, coopèrent avec l’agence européenne pour la gestion des frontières extérieures (FRONTEX) et augmentent leurs capacité de gestion des frontières en contrepartie d’avantages politiques ou financiers (accords de facilitation de délivrance de visas et assistance financière). Devant ces politiques, on reste un peu perplexe, car il semble quasiment que l’UE soit en train de faire un pas en arrière en ce qui concerne la protection des droits fondamentaux des mineurs avec un tournée vers le renforcement des frontières, surtout après avoir promu différents outils juridiques relatifs exactement à la protection de l‘enfance.

 

La détermination de l’âge et la tutelle des MIE

Une fois qu’ils entrent sur le territoire, les MIE peuvent être amenés à rencontrer différents représentants de la police ou garde-frontières lorsqu’ils traversent les frontières des États.

Le rôle des autorités d’identifier l’identité et l’âge d’un mineur est essentiel pour décider s’il peut ou non entrer et/ou les procédure/traitements afférents. En effet, si le migrant est reconnu mineur, il pourra en règle général être assisté d’un tuteur ou d’un représentant légal administrateur ad hoc et jouir de certaines garanties devant les autorités nationales.

Aussi dans ce cas, les méthodes varient d’un État membre à l’autre. En général, les autorités nationales se réfèrent à des tests médicaux combinés à des entretiens afin de vérifier l’âge du migrant. Toutefois, la Résolution du Parlement du 12 septembre 2013 a retenu ces techniques médicales inadaptées. Elles ont été retenues aussi dangereuse pour la santé (lors de l’usage des rayons X) et pas fiables, vu la marge d’erreur possible (la datation de l’âge par des tests

radiologiques présente une marge d’erreur d’au moins deux ans). Le risque, c’est de déclarer des mineurs de 15-16 ans abusivement majeurs et d’enfreindre leurs droits.

Un autre problème qui émerge sur la protection des mineurs demandeurs d’asile, et qui a été aussi soulevé dans la dernière réunion de la Commission LIBE du 16 juillet, c’est qu’il y a des lacunes au niveau de la collaboration et coopération entre les Agences Nationales qui s’occupent des mineurs. Ce qui est certain, comme le directeur de l’EASO a dit, c’est que l’UE a essayé de faire si que les États membres, par des directives, appliquent des normes au niveau internationale pour la protection des mineurs et en particulier des mineurs demandeurs d’asile. Intéressante, à cette égard, c’est l’étude de l’Agence des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne (FRA) en collaboration avec l’EASO (Bureau européen d’appui pour l’asile) et Frontex pour la création d’un module de formation complémentaire sur les droits fondamentaux des mineurs au service des Pays membres, particulièrement sur les aspects des compétences des agents en charge d’asile et des autorité de contrôle aux frontières.

 

Comment des solutions pérennes sont-elles mises en place par les États membres ?

Dans la majorité des États (membres), la législation ne définit pas de solution pérenne pour les MIE après réalisation d’une évaluation individuelle des besoins dans l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant. Cependant, certains États prévoient à l’avenir d’y remédier. La majorité des Pays s’efforcent de déterminer des solutions pérennes pour les MIE, notamment l’intégration, le regroupement familial ou le retour. Une procédure de détermination de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant existe dans plusieurs États (membres) pour appuyer la décision de l’autorité compétente concernant une solution pérenne à apporter aux MIE, mais celle-ci n’est pas systématiquement rapportée. Les autorités chargées de déterminer la solution pérenne ainsi que le délai pour prendre cette décision diffèrent selon les États (membres).

 

En conclusion

Si on parcourt en bref les étapes de ces migrations, on se rende compte que, malgré les importantes améliorations de l’acquis communautaire en matière d’asile, notamment les garanties de procédures (droit à la représentation juridique, droit d’être entendu, droit au regroupement familial ou règles relatives à la prise en compte de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant dans les procédures), des lacunes potentielles subsistent dans la législation et les sortes de ces mineurs migrants changent selon qu’ils arrivent dans un État membre où il y a une législation plus favorable plutôt que dans un autre où la législation est quasiment mute sur le thème.

Face à ces lacunes législatives, le Parlement a adopté en 2013, un Rapport d’initiative sur la situation des mineurs non accompagnés au sein de l’Union européenne.

Premièrement, ce rapport, qui déplorait l’éparpillement des dispositions européennes relatives aux mineurs non accompagnés, demandait très clairement et instamment à la Commission de réaliser, à l’intention des États membres et de tous les professionnels du secteur, un « manuel » qui contiendrait ces différentes bases juridiques, afin de faciliter leur application par les États.

Deuxièmement, ce rapport demandait à la Commission d’élaborer des lignes stratégiques pour les États membres qui, fondées sur leurs meilleures pratiques, prendraient la forme de prescriptions minimales communes et porteraient sur chaque étape du processus, depuis l’arrivée du mineur sur le territoire européen jusqu’à ce qu’une solution durable soit trouvée pour lui, afin de lui assurer une protection adéquate.

 

Mais jusqu’à maintenant, la Commission a rien fait. Comme a déclaré aussi la Rapporteur du PE sur la situation des MIE, Nathalie Griesbeck, « Le Parlement Européen a demandé il y a près de 2 ans maintenant, très clairement et à une très large majorité des lignes stratégiques concrètes sans aucun retour de la part de la Commission européenne! » À sa demande, un débat aura donc lieu sur cette question, en présence de la Commission européenne, en commission parlementaire LIBE le 3 septembre prochain.

 

Cristina De Martino

 

Pour en savoir plus :

 

– Plan d’action pour les mineurs non accompagnés (2010-2014) : http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=URISERV:jl0037

 

– Rapport à mi-parcours relatif à la mise en oeuvre du Plan d’action pour les mineurs non accompagnés : http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/docs/uam/uam_report_20120928_fr.pdf

– Convention de Genève 1951 : https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classifiedcompilation/19510156/201206140000/0.142.30.pdf

– Résolution du Parlement 12 septembre 2013 : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0387+0+DOC+XML+V0//FR

– Rapport d’initiative sur la situation des mineurs non accompagnés au sein de l’Union européenne : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/fr/news-room/content/20121213AVI04594/html/Nathalie-Griesbeck-situation-des-mineurs-non-accompagn%C3%A9s-au-sein-de-l’UE

– Politiques, pratiques et données statistiques sur les mineurs isolés étrangers dans les États membres de l’UE et en Norvège :  http://www.immigration.interieur.gouv.fr/Europe-et-International/Le-reseau-europeen-des-migrations-REM/Les-etudes-du-REM/Politiques-pratiques-et-donnees-statistiques-sur-les-mineurs-isoles-etrangers-en-2014

Classé dans:Conditions d'accueil des réfugiés, DIGNITE HUMAINE, Droit à l'intégrité de la personne, Droit à l'information, Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté, Droit à la santé, DROIT INTERNATIONAL, Droits de l'enfant, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, IMMIGRATION

Son nom de code est "TSCG". Plus communément appelé "Pacte budgétaire européen", le traité sur la stabilité, la coordination et gouvernance au sein de l'Union économique et monétaire vise à contraindre les Etats de la zone euro à financer leurs dépenses par leurs recettes et donc à limiter le recours à l'emprunt. Signé le 2 mars 2012 par 25 Etats membres de l'UE (tous sauf le Royaume-Uni, la République tchèque et la Croatie qui ne fait alors pas encore partie de l'UE), ce nouveau traité est entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 2013.

Erasmus, l’action de mobilité phare de l’Union européenne dans le domaine de l’enseignement et de la formation, a été lancé en 1987.Désormais intitulé Erasmus+, le programme s'adresse non seulement aux étudiants mais aussi aux professeurs, aux apprentis et aux jeunes actifs qui souhaitent suivre une période d'études, faire un stage, enseigner ou bénéficier d'une formation à l'étranger.Depuis sa création, 3 millions d’étudiants sont partis étudier dans un autre pays européen.

En 2014, le célèbre programme européen de mobilité étudiante, Erasmus, devient Erasmus+. Il regroupe désormais l'ensemble des actions de mobilité et de coopération européennes relatives à l'éducation, la formation, mais aussi la jeunesse et le sport. En termes d'éducation et de formation, Erasmus+ couvre désormais l'enseignement scolaire, professionnel et supérieur, ainsi que l'éducation des adultes et la formation des jeunes actifs.

Etre Européen ce n'est pas seulement se déplacer comme on le souhaite pour les vacances, c'est aussi pouvoir partir étudier un semestre ou un an dans l'un des 33 pays du programme Erasmus.D'où vient ce nom ? Le programme Erasmus tire son nom du savant néerlandais Erasme qui sillonna l'Europe au XVe siècle mû par une grande soif de connaissance. Erasme ne savait pas qu'il rentrait alors dans la légende européenne des grands marcheurs du savoir.

On Tuesday May 27th, the second GreenEcoNet Annual Conferece with the title: ‘Growing a sustainable EU economy through SMEs: Boosting jobs, growth and entrepreneurship’ was hold at the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. As job creation and economic growth are two of the top priorities of the European Commission under President Juncker, the conference aimed at discussing the impact of SMEs to growing a sustainable EU economy, addressing issues such as the contribution of SMEs to developing green jobs as well as the growth and job opportunities arising from a more efficient use of resources.

 

After a short introductory part, hold by Vasileios Rizos, Researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies, Kurt Vandenberghe, Director DG Research & Innovation, European Commission, was asked to make the point about SMEs and ‘green-growth’ in Europe.

 

Kurt Vandenberghe:

Greening is happening even in spite of policy-making. Europe is already a leader in green know-how technologies but further efforts are needed in order to boost economic growth and well being through eco-sustainable or eco-efficient measures.

The question for policy-making regulators these days is not how to promote green growth but how do we accelerate ‘green-growth’ in Europe?

We need a transformative agenda, we’re currently making progress but we could do much more. Indeed what we need to do is to give a reasonable perspective of a return in investment. This is our objective in Horizon 2020 and should also be a message to public authorities.

We will pay a lot of attention to the future of SMEs not just because prescribed in the horizon 2020 procedure but because we are convinced that SMEs are the drivers of innovation.

Greening and growing go together and will even go more together in the future

 

What do SMEs need, to create more jobs?

Patrice Liauzu, Adviser, European Investment bank:

First of all our macroeconomic environment is still slowly recovering from the

Economical crisis and there are still some issues concerning bank leverage.

Moreover, what we also witness is that there is still a high level of market

fragmentation in Europe. Indeed in a few countries, as Germany and Austria for

example the conditions for SMEs are better if compared to the southern part of

Europe. Last but not least, the supply chain is a bit weak therefore we do need to

propose a solution on the policy side. In order to create more jobs, we need to promote investments and liquidity flows into the market.

The problems we are facing in this context, is that the big banks institutes often do not foster SMEs investment projects because they are judged as too small.

Banks should start considering the proposed projects not just in terms of financial return but also in social and environmental terms.

My message today is the following one: we need to try to provide tools and instruments in order to incentive banks to finance also small projects. Equity is also something we need to promote further, and in order to reach these objectives we will closely cooperate with the European Commission.

 

How can research and innovation boost growth and green jobs for SMEs in Europe?

Peter Czaga, Policy Officer, DG Environment, European Commission:

The progress made concerning the promotion of green economy initiatives in the last period was good but we need to continue our work in this direction. In order to boost economical growth and employment rates we need to step our efforts for concrete policy measures, with a specific focus on SME’s.

Our intention is to develop a circular economy package in the near future focusing on environment, access to raw materials, societal pressures, innovation and growth potential. Just considering waste, there are and would be lots of opportunities for SMEs to go greener.

The areas of intervention will be, and need to be the following ones: 

– Extraction and production processes, rendering them ‘greener’; 

– Product design, enhancing consumer awareness;

– Distribution and consumption;

– Waste, some countries are doing very well, others are lacking behind. 

– More and better harmonization.

 

How can SMEs contribute to a sustainable EU economy?

Franz Brudl, Advisor, Austrian economic chamber, presented the Austrian perspective:

A green business is: a business that develops, produces and sells environmental technology to become “greener” in a wider sense.

In Austria most of our companies are SMEs. To be precise 99,6% of the Austrian companies are SME’s, employing 1,7 million people and training other 65.000 a year. This green sector took off in Austria about the 1990, and was strong even during the years of the crisis (turnover increased by 8% every year).

Concerning the European green companies sector, Germany is in the lead, closely followed by Sweden and Austria.

In terms of contribution to a sustainable economy, ‘green’ SMEs in Austria contributed to a reduction in terms of gas emissions and waste volume for 953.000 MWh last year, comparable to 38 million Euros. Moreover investing in SME’s contributes to upgrade your brand image allowing you to sell your products to a higher price.

 

What kind of impacts do green business models and practices have on growth and job creation?

Daniel Coulon, Managing Director, Techniwood International, presents the point of view for the SMEs:

Higher efficient products warrant performance. In order to develop these products investments in research and development are needed which often require a huge amount of money.

The problem SME’s are facing nowadays is quite simple: the time amount needed from the development of a new market product, to its market implementation takes too much time resulting in an increase of expenditures. With the amount of current regulations, if a company decides to change and innovate also just a minimum aspect in the creation of a product, the path to undertake in order to obtain a patent is extremely long, varying from country to country. Moreover standards also vary from country to country. A higher level of harmonization of the internal market is needed; in fact there is no Single Market yet.

 

Patrick Zingerle

Classé dans:Actualités, Perspectives financières

En dépit des nombreuses critiques formulées aux niveaux national, européen ou international, par différentes associations spécialisées dans la protection des libertés fondamentales, ONG, personnalités politiques ainsi que des réserves exprimées par la Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) et le Défenseur des droits en France, Jacques Toubon, le projet de loi définitif relatif au renseignement a été voté massivement les 23 et 24 juin par les parlementaires français. Ce texte controversé vise à fournir un cadre légal aux activités des services de renseignement français. (Pour plus d’informations, lire un précédent article dédié au projet de loi)

            Au niveau européen, cinq eurodéputés membres du groupe ALDE (Alliance des Libéraux et Démocrates Européens) ont interpellé la Commission européenne au sujet du projet de loi français. Nathalie Griesbeck (France), Sophie in’t Veld (Pays-Bas), Cecilia Wikström (Suède), Filiz Hyusmenova (Bulgarie) et Louis Michel (Belgique) avaient adressé dès le 14 avril 2015, une question avec demande de réponse écrite à la Commission. En substance, les élus s’interrogeaient sur la conformité du projet de loi français au droit mais aussi aux valeurs et droits de l’Union européenne. Si la Commission européenne dans une lettre du 23 juin, co-signée par Frans Timmermans, premier Vice-Président de la Commission, et les Commissaires Dimitris Avramopoulos et Věra Jourová, ne s’estimait « pas compétente pour commenter la législation nationale d’un Etat membre tant que la procédure intérieure n’est pas achevée », celle-ci considérait que le projet de loi pouvait « soulever d’importantes questions de droit ».

            La dernière critique en date émane du Comité des droits de l’Homme de l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU) qui considère que le projet de loi accorde des « pouvoirs excessivement larges de surveillance » aux services de renseignement. Le Comité, composé de 18 experts indépendants, dénonce, dans son rapport remis le 10 juillet, les objectifs « vastes et peu définis » qui sont attribués au texte.

            Dès le 25 juin, trois saisines avaient été déposées devant le Conseil constitutionnel français, Cour Suprême garante de la conformité de la loi à la Constitution française notamment. Le premier recours avait été formé par 106 députés, à l’initiative de Laure de La Raudière et Pierre Lellouche, tous deux députés Les Républicains. Les élus s’interrogeaient sur « la définition large et peu précise des missions pouvant donner lieu à des enquêtes administratives » ainsi que sur « les moyens techniques considérables de collectes massives de données ». De même, la question de « la proportionnalité, par rapport aux objectifs recherchés, de la mise en œuvre de ces techniques intrusives et attentatoires au respect de la vie privée » avait motivé leur saisine. Parallèlement, le Président du Sénat, Gérard Larcher, également membre du groupe Les Républicains, avait fait le choix d’une saisine blanche du Conseil constitutionnel. Cela signifie que Monsieur Larcher ne formulait aucun grief et saisissait les Sages sur l’ensemble du texte. Habituellement, le Conseil constitutionnel examine uniquement les dispositions dont la conformité à la Constitution est contestée. Enfin, pour la première fois, le Président de la République, François Hollande (Parti socialiste), avait saisi le Conseil constitutionnel « pour savoir si l’ensemble des dispositions prévues assuraient un équilibre suffisant entre la sauvegarde des intérêts fondamentaux de la Nation et la protection des droits constitutionnellement garantis, en particulier le respect de la vie privée ».

            Les associations French Data Network et la Quadrature du Net, ainsi que la Fédération des Fournisseurs d’accès à internet associatifs, qui avaient déjà exprimé leurs inquiétudes au cours de l’examen du projet de loi, ont transmis au Conseil constitutionnel, le 25 juin également, un mémoire visant à appuyer les saisines. Il en a été de même pour GenerationLibre et les acteurs des nouvelles technologies le 1er juillet.

            Par sa décision n° 2015-713 DC du 23 juillet 2015, le Conseil constitutionnel a validé l’essentiel du projet de loi et censuré trois dispositions. Le premier article concerné devait permettre aux services de renseignement de déroger à l’autorité politique, c’est-à-dire à l’autorisation du Premier ministre et à l’avis de la Commission nationale de contrôle des techniques de renseignement, en cas « d’urgence opérationnelle ». Les Sages ont considéré qu’il s’agissait là d’une « atteinte manifestement disproportionnée au droit au respect de la vie privée et au secret des correspondances ». L’article relatif à la surveillance internationale a également été censuré, le Conseil constitutionnel considérant que « le législateur n’a pas déterminé les règles concernant les garanties fondamentales accordées au citoyen pour l’exercice des libertés publiques ». Les contours de cette surveillance internationale ont donc été jugés trop flous en l’absence de fixation des modalités d’exploitation, de conservation et de destruction des renseignements collectés ainsi que des conditions du contrôle par la Commission nationale de contrôle des techniques de renseignement. La troisième disposition censurée relevait, pour le Conseil constitutionnel, « du domaine réservé des lois de finances ». Celle-ci n’avait donc pas lieu de figurer dans le projet de loi sur le renseignement.

            Les techniques de renseignement prévues par le projet de loi ont donc été validées, sous réserve qu’un strict contrôle de proportionnalité soit effectué. Il en est ainsi des interceptions administratives de correspondances, des techniques de sonorisation, de la captation d’images et de données informatiques ou encore de la géolocalisation. Les durées de conservation des données collectées ont également été jugées conformes.

            Le Président de la République a réagi le jour même et pris acte des articles censurés. Son communiqué de presse insiste sur le fait que les articles en question « ne modifient en aucune façon l’équilibre de la loi et ne privent pas les services de renseignement de leurs moyens d’agir ». Le Premier ministre, Manuel Valls, s’est quant à lui félicité sur Twitter de la création d’un « cadre sécurisé contre le terrorisme et respectueux des libertés » qu’il considère être un « progrès décisif ». Sans surprise, La Quadrature du Net ne partage pas cet avis. Pour cette association de défense des droits et libertés numériques « le Conseil constitutionnel légalise la surveillance de masse et avalise un recul historique des droits fondamentaux ». Une décision, « extrêmement décevante » qui conduira à la promulgation d’une « loi scélérate » contre laquelle l’association entend continuer de se battre.

            Les regards sont à présent tournés vers la Commission européenne qui va pouvoir donner son avis sur la conformité de la loi française avec le droit, les valeurs et les droits de l’Union européenne, et ainsi répondre aux députés européens qui s’inquiètent de la mise en place d’une surveillance organisée. Questionné sur ce sujet de la surveillance, Edward Snowden a répondu de manière cinglante : « Prétendre ne pas s’inquiéter pour sa vie privée parce qu’on n’a rien à cacher revient à dire qu’on se moque de la liberté d’expression parce qu’on n’a rien à dire ». Affaire à suivre donc…

 

Charline Quillérou

 

Pour en savoir plus

-. EU-LOGOS, « Projet de loi français relatif au renseignement : On n’est pas sorti de l’auberge ! Pense-t-on à Bruxelles »

http://europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2015/07/11/projet-de-loi-francais-relatif-au-renseignement-on-nest-pas-sorti-de-lauberge-pense-t-on-a-bruxelles/ (FR)

-. Rapport du comité consultatif des droits de l’Homme de l’ONU

https://cdn.nextinpact.com/medias/ccpr_c_fra_co_5_21191_f.docx (FR)

-. Communiqué de presse du Conseil constitutionnel sur la décision n°2015-713

http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2015/2015-713-dc/communique-de-presse.144139.html (FR)

-. Décision n° 2015-713 DC du 23 juillet 2015 du Conseil constitutionnel sur la loi renseignement

http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2015/2015-713-dc/decision-n-2015-713-dc-du-23-juillet-2015.144138.html (FR)

-. Communiqué de presse du Président de la République française

http://www.elysee.fr/communiques-de-presse/article/conseil-constitutionnel/ (FR)

 

Classé dans:CITOYENNETE EUROPEENNE, Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Lutte contre le crime organisé, lutte contre le terrorisme, Protection des données personnelles

         

The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in collaboration with TechUK and the Coalition for the Digital Economy (COADEC), invited Wednesday May 13th for a Digital Forum seminar entitled: “The General Data Protection Regulation- Issues for the Trilogue”. The seminar, divided in two parts, discussed the main issues related to the upcoming trilogue on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from the point of view of start-ups and entrepreneurs on the one side and policy experts on the other.

 

Panel 1: Challenges of data protection for start-ups and SMEs

 

The first panel discussion aimed at providing the policy experts present at the discussion, with an insider perspective. A team of entrepreneurs urged regulators to provide them with legal clarity and questioned the extent to which explicit consent should be balanced with legitimate interests for companies that want to develop useful solutions and personalised services to their costumers.

 

Nathan Salter (COO, OMG):
My company provides performance marketing and advertisement services using anonymous data. In our business we’re paid only if the advert generates SEO, therefore we use cookies and other anonymous tricks to know if we are working successful. IP addresses are collected and used to count and evaluate the number of generated sales, not to identify end-users.

It seems that with the new data protection proposal, the scope of personal data is getting broader and broader. Types of data we never considered personal are becoming it. Data’s are becoming very sensitive involved in the new regulation.

The risk of a too restrictive regulation, that could hamper the development of the Internet advertising and marketing industry, a source of exponential growth in the EU, needs to be taken into account. We need to adopt rules on a case-by-case basis, distinguishing between innovative data analytics from aggressive profiling, unfair tracking and price discrimination practice.

 

Raphael Van Assche (Managing Consultant, Tunstall Healthcare):

My company provides technology enabled services, basically social alarm services, e-medicine or health management services to elderly people in Europe.

We collect data but we don’t use them for profiling activities, we just get the right information in order to support the people in the best way.

In order to enhance trust and confidence we really need to adopt an efficient data protection regulation, ensuring better perspectives for e-business development in Europe. A better harmonisation of the data rules around Europe would help to create a communitarian health database.

 

Andrey Dokuchaev (COO, Clausematch):

I’m representing a utility platform for contract negotiations. The adoption of the new GDPR would provide joint liability between data controllers and data processers. Additional requirements would potentially raise the costs and add burdensome procedures, becoming a major problem for start-ups.

 

Aneesh Varma (Founder, Aire):

My company provides access to financial products, therefore to warrant a financial service our profiling activities need to be accurate. Mobility for work is increasing; this raises the need for data to move with workers. Data should be used to drive financial inclusion.

 

Panel 2: Issues for the Trilogue

 

During the first panel we had the opportunity to hear and better get to know the point of view of a team of entrepreneurs giving us an insider perspective. The second panel discussion, focus on the other half of the medal: policy experts. Indeed, the Council and the European Parliament have conflicting positions on many provisions, including the sensitive “informed consent” issue, set out as a cornerstone by the EP. This principle foresees that users must be informed and explicitly express their consent about any activity aiming at collecting or processing their data.

 

Michal Boni MEP:

We have been working on GDPR for a long time. I think that now we should say thank u very much to the Latvian presidency, as they open the possibility to start the trilogue discussions, hoping on a good institutional cooperation!

Indeed we are open for discussions, but remembering our work done until now. Combined with the review of the privacy directive, the adoption of the GDPR would shape a concrete continental privacy package, striking the right balance between business interests and user’s protection.

Moreover we should understand that there is no possibility to discuss on possible solutions, concerning the 16 initiatives presented in the DSM strategy without starting the implementation of the GDPR. I would also like to strengthen the point, that one of the 16 initiatives is focused on a privacy directive, underlining the need for Europe to have a privacy regulation. We need to prepare the conditions and framework for it’s implementation, and we need to consider if all the presented solutions will be implementable.

Speaking about data protection and data privacy we should think on a better balance between all the stakeholders and the possibility for business to implement it.

A new question should be put on the table: Who is actually the owner of Data?

Are we the owners as individuals, as public authorities, as businesses?

The answer is: everyone, not just businesses! It’s not all about business, there is indeed no possibility for our digital economy to further develop without a data regulation.

Let me conclude mentioning that during the trilogue it will be particularly important to focus on the following controversial points: Explicit and Non-explicit content, the right to be forgotten, profiling activities, One Stop Shop.

When talking about data protection regulation, we need to stress the importance of more harmonisation and better cooperation including all the stakeholders.

In some areas we need regulations in others we need conduct codes.

 

Kevin O’Connel (Member of Commissioner Vĕra Jourová’s Cabinet, European Commission) gave his own view on the evolution of the legislative process starting from the first Commission’s proposal in 2012. Indeed if the initial reform proposed focused more on empowering EU citizens, giving them better and clearer data protection laws, the new agenda, adopted by this College of Commissioners, includes also EU rules to improve regulations for SMEs and entrepreneurs. The regulation, currently under intense discussion, can be defined as a key building block for the launch of the DSM, and the GDPR as the most important variable of the whole DSM strategy.

In order to be successful, we need to be careful when adapting the directive, not inventing something new but enforcing and updating the existing things. As we are dealing with fundamental rights, we need to be very carefully.

 

Baiba Jugane (Justice Consellor, Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia), basically pointed out the achievements made under the Latvian presidency. The biggest effort, she said, was the agreement on the one stop shop mechanism for data protection.

Concerning the most debated horizontal issues, Chapter II relating on the principles of data processing, was the most crucial point. Indeed this chapter and its principles are still an issue on the table. Our intention is also to find a compromise on Chapter III.

Finally I would like to thank the other member States and Institutions for the trust expressed towards the Latvian presidency and wish good luck and a good work to the representatives of Luxembourg, which will take over the presidency.

 

Laure Wagener (Counsellor, Permanent Representation of Luxembourg to the Eu) congratulated her Latvian colleagues for the excellent work done during their presidency. Now it’s up to us to continue with the good work done until yet.

Concerning our presidency we will focus on two imperatives concerning the GDPR:

• We need to get it right!
  We need to get the right balance between protecting data subjects and permitting or shaping the right conditions for businesses to work. It’s imperative to increase the level of harmonisation among member states! The data subject deserves more clarity and we will work in order to warrant the same level of data protection in the whole European Union.
• We need to get a workable solution: Easily enforceable and updated.
  This is an opportunity to regain a leading position as a technology exporter not a consumer. New technologies and developments on the use of data do not need to be at the odds with the principles of data protection.

 

Time is another crucial factor, because we need to update the legal framework as soon as possible, otherwise it will be out-dated as soon as implemented. Technological progress moves on very fast. Getting the reform in place by 2015 is and will be our common goal.

 

Anthony Walker:

When regulating and thinking about the potential text of the DSM, it’s important to think about all the stakeholders, including them all. The European companies need a clear legal framework in order to do their business and to do it the best way possible.

We have to deliver both of the things: Jobs and privacy.

The digital innovation can do great things for Europe, for the world, but needs the right legal framework to be able to express its whole potential.

The idea of proportionality is important, as there are many scenarios where this right is highly needed.

The other big question is the issue of consent, how do we avoid the situation of bothering people with the issues of consent? And how can we be sure, that people really pay attention to the legal terms?

Simplicity and clarity that’s what we need speaking about digital markets.

 

Patrick Zingerle

 

To know more:

 EU-LOGOS ATHENA “INSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLES CONCERNING THE GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION »:

http://europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2015/03/17/institutional-struggles-concerning-the-general-data-protection-regulation/

PROPOSAL ON THE GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf

Classé dans:DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Protection des données personnelles

On Thursday, June 4th, amendments to the EU Passenger Name Record data proposal (EU PNR) have been discussed in the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee. The Libe rapporteur Mr. Kirkhope prepared a new version of the draft rapport presented on the 26th of February 2015 to this Committee. Of the 836 amendments tabled, 47 were presented by the rapporteur itself in his draft reports, while other 789 by MEP from various political groups.

 Mr. Kirkhope:

There were a significant number of amendments to my rapport. The European Parliament is committed in the plenary to gaining agreement on the directive to the end of this year if possible. I am sure that there is a desire for progress also to be made on on the Data Protection Regulation and a directive in a similar time frame. I believe there is movement in that regard and that is encouraging too.

I believe all of you know my position by now, and that I believe that this directive is not only essential in the fight against international criminality terrorism, but it is also essential in of putting in place the highest possible standards in term of data protection and processing and legal and administrative redress for individuals especially passengers.

All our security endeavours are seeking to protect lives and our liberties. In my mind this aims can be doubt equally and fairly in this directive.

In terms of the amendments received, there are a very broad selection. There are amendments calling for the rejection of the directive, and there are also amendments that call on the data sharing and collection, there are amendments, which propose a mode for regulations as well as for a directive. I made my position clear in my revise report because some media are continuing to refer only to Commission proposals, and that is from a parliamentary point of view unacceptable.

I have opinions on each of the individual amendments but I believe it is more usual for those here today to explain the thinking behind the amendments.

I think there are core elements on which we can reach a compromise and we are attempting to do so. These core elements involve data protection provisions and safeguards, the scope of the directive itself and the need for better information sharing and more rules in regard of that information sharing between the member states. There is clear desire among members and their amendments to make sure that when we provide law enforcement measures regarding the use of data that, that sharing and collections is actually carried out. That it’s exchange is efficient and that the instruments we prepare are been used and implemented properly. There is little use of instruments been created which have not been used by member States or used properly. And that issue is reflected in a number of amendments. I think we have a lot of experience here on some of very important measures passing throw which have encouraged cooperation and exchange of information in order to deal with law enforcement and I think som of us certainly have been disappointed over the last few years as they have not been used as much as they should have been, or have not been used in a proper manner.

There have also been a large number of amendments on crimes, which can be included in the scope of the directive as well as the need to collect information not just for flights outside the EU but also for flights inside the EU.

My personal position is quite clear in this regard, once the right safeguard review mechanism are put in place, we should produce a directive which leaves as few loopholes as possible for criminals to exploit. In terms of moving forward the shadow rapporteurs and I met more times and I believe we are working constructively together.

Do we agree on everything at the moment? No.

Do we believe it will be an easy task? Of course not.

But I do believe we trying to find solutions by working together closely. And I hope we will soon be back in committee been able to vote on a position which provides an effective European system which the majority of political groups and members can then support. I am still convinced on the necessity and proportionality of the instrument and also that an experienced solution is required. This has been accorded as you know by the Commission, by the Council, by Member States and by Europol.

The threats we face are real and we need to find solutions

I want to thank also the shadow rapporteurs who I know have been working very hard and cooperating fully in moving our report forward.

 

Augustín Díaz De Mera García Consuegra (EPP):

Our Rapporteur is doing an excellent job, however the European Parliament is and remains too slowly within its legislative work on PNR. Two months has passed since we send our amendments to Mr. Kirkhope’s report, however we’ve had 5 shadow meetings, unfortunately without any progress. There were discussions on Article 7, 7/A, 8 and 1 but without any agreement.

The main important points for EPP, these are points where we stick into our guns because protection of our citizens is our priority, protection against terrorism and terrorist attacks and other serious crimes is important as well. Basically the EPP is calling for: Enlarging the scope of application, including national flight in order to reduce the possibility for criminals and foreign fighters to have access to Europe, secondly inclusion of other operators as tourist operators which sell tourist packages using charter flights, but their customers PNR data is not necessarily passed on to the airlines operating the flights, PNR data should be passed on in any case. Moreover we call for enforcing the cooperation between Member States and Europol.

The retention period is also important; if the period is too short the investigations can’t be fruitful. The EPP is calling for an extension of the retention period from 4 to 7 years after which data should be erased permanently. Data should be encrypted after six months. Collection and use of sensitive data banned in order to ensure a high level of data protection, we need to make sure that national independent supervisor authorities in each member state and in particularly there needs to be someone in charge of PNR data processing who is also in charge to control and evaluate how the data are processed.

EPP is also asking for a clear list of crimes, which are a serious threat to the public.

We need to listen to what member states are saying in order to agree on compromises as quick as possible.

 

Birgit Sippel (S&D):

We all have different views, but at the end of the day we need to reach a compromise. Concerning the statements of the EPP exponent, rapid does not necessarily mean good, on our opinion the EP was not too slow.

Protect citizens is important as EPP emphasised but in fact more than 99% of the passengers are innocent citizens, so we need to ensure that data are treated carefully respecting their privacy avoiding abuses.

PNR really can add value, but we need to be very cautious on how we work on it. How data collection can be protected, how we can create laws to ensure safety. It is worth spending the time to ensure we create a really sound result. Concerning the periods of retention, just mentioning the time of data retention may help criminals, so perhaps we should keep the data for 50 years ensuring that they have to wait for a very long time before they attempt travel.

We think that only data relating to cross boarder flight should be collected.

We do have very different positions in various areas, but for us the questions of taking account of the court judgement concerning the high protection of data, scope is important assuring that at the end of the day we have a single European system applied in all member states and not 29 very different systems. I’m looking forward for an agreement to be reached soon.

 

Sophie in ‘t Veld (ALDE):

A bit surprised by the words of the EPP exponent, concerning the slow work of the Parliament on the PNR dossier, as they don’t reflect the atmosphere in which we have been working so far. We are actually doing our work and we want to know when the Commission or the Council intend to deliver?

We have been waiting for two and a half months now, for a reply at my letter, on two issues related to the:

• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Necessity and the proportionality of an EU PNR scheme;
• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Legal analysis of the Commission concerning Data retentions ruling which is key to this dossier.

I do expect the Council and the Commission to deliver because otherwise we will not do it either.

On the substance of the proposals, for my group there is one big priority: How do we achieve the sharing of information?

Achieving the sharing of information is a very key point; we want mandatory and ultimate sharing of information: in first place the results of the analysis of PNR data and where necessary and appropriate also the role data itself.

We opt strongly for a Single European Passenger Information Unit, being convinced that this would be best achieved by having a regulation instead of a directive, and for us this is the key to everything.

On the scope the safeguards and other elements, they will depend on what the module for Passenger Information Unit will be like. With regard to scope we are talking about a list of crimes that should be covered by the European PNR scheme, I can imagine that we find a compromise on that, but it’s important that we include a review of this list of crimes.

With regard to intra EU flights, our group is opposed to include intra EU flights data or other ways of transport.

Concerning the retention period, we would propose data retention for no longer than 30 days if not necessary for any other kind of investigation.

I think a compromise is possible, we have a couple of shared objective but the success will depend on the commitment of all the political groups.

 

Jan Philipp Albrecht (Alliance ‘90/the Greens):

I share lot of the critical remarks. We should remember that in order to legally collect data, when retaining them you need to have any proportional link to a risk or suspicion otherwise it’s illegal.

This directive on PNR does not foresee any reason for which the flights are risky, there is no justification needed for the profiling of passengers. There’s no targeting, no profiling, that’s just mass collection of data. The US at this moment is getting in a better direction than Europe, at least they speak about targeting in their measures trying to involve targeting criteria in their measures.

Collecting data on innocent passengers is not just illegal but cost a lot of time and money.

It is a scandal that Commission and Council have not changed their proposals on this directive after the Data Retention Case of the ECJ last April. They just ignored the Highest Court. Even if you think that PNR data is something totally different data than personal ones than our institution has send the Canada PNR agreement to the Court in order to have a feedback.

 

Kristina Winberg (EFD):

The directive is on the right track but I’m very concerned about the time it takes. The important think for me is that we get together the rules assuring that all member states are gathering the same information and distributing the same information in order to fight serious crime. I don’t think that PNR should only apply to flight to and from the EU but to all type of flights, including charters.

I see it as my human right to be safe in my own country, and I don’t feel safe in my county anymore so that’s why I welcome this directive.

 

Christine Revault d’Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D):

I’m keen to include confidentiality and also charter flights into PNR.

PNR needs to be more operational this is why we need to follow my position on cross boarder offences could be determinant using PNR.

Include the term of race is useless and meaningless as we all belong to one race, this opinion is also shared by the foreign affairs committee. We are working to make the PNR system more effective, operational and proportionate in order to better fight organized crime and terrorism.

 

Sylvie Guillaume (S&D):

Four areas that on my opinion deserve more focus for amendments:

• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Strengthening the European dimension and system. The harmonising effect of the directive, there is a proposal, which maintains a centralized structure. We need to ensure that we have more commonly applied criteria.
• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Increasing warranties, several sub-points here: we need to be more specific about the information of passengers. Improving the operations of PNR units.
• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Focus on sensitive data and strengthen warranties with regards to the transmission of sensitive data and the PNR data annex needs to drop the general remarks category.
• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>In this proposal later examination will focus on quantitative data almost exclusively, we have to add also qualitative data and that means that we have to add a number of criteria to our examinations.

 

Responses from Council and Commission:

 

Council:

We hope the vote will follow quickly. Council remains committed to reach an agreement as quick as possible. Council believes that it’s important and necessary to have a strong and effective PNR. It is important to engage in this interinstitutional debate.

 

Commission:

Responding to Madame in ‘t Veld reminding that The Commission has actually responded to the letter for the resolution of the Parliament, the 11th of February, identifying the key elements that the Commission considering for a reply. The letter, which was sent the month of March, will have a response by the end of this week.

Concerning the Proportionality issue, it needs to be linked to the data protection safeguards that the PNR will put in place. Necessity instead as been said several times, the PNR processing is the only tool used to identify the suspect using conjunction with other information held b, it is therefore clearly difficult to distinguish the cases where PNR processing was the only useful tool.

 

Patrick Zingerle

 

To know more:

 

-EU-LOGOS, “ANOTHER EPISODE OF THE PNR SAGA, REMARKS OF THE NATIONAL DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITIES”

http://europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2015/04/19/another-episode-of-the-pnr-saga-remarks-of-the-national-data-protection-authorities/

Classé dans:COOPERATION JUDICIAIRE POLICIERE, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Lutte contre le crime organisé, lutte contre le terrorisme, Lutte contre le trafic de drogue, Protection des données personnelles

“The international trade and civil liberties committees held a hearing on June, 16th to discuss how to reconcile the need for data protection with trade agreements that boost business in the EU, an iisue that has gained importance due to the upcoming reform of EU data protection rules. “ German S&D member Bernd Lange and UK S&D member Claude Moraes chaired the hearing, which was divided in two panels. Participants included MEPs, Giovanni Buttarelli the European Data Protection Supervisor, as well as representatives fro the European Commission, NGOs and business organisations.

 

Panel discussion I: Data flows, localisation and global value chains: offensive and defensive interests at stake.

 

Ignatio Irrurarezaga, Head of Unit on Services (EU negotiatior on TiSA), DG Trade:

It has been sad that data flows are the backbone of our economy. Indeed they represent a crucial factor in the new global economy. Data we refer to is a combination between personal and non-personal data. Sometimes they overlap. Do we have an offensive interest?
We think we do. On data flows we don’t have very good data. The EU is the largest exporter in the world, followed by the US. We have an economic stake here even if the data are not perfect.

Do we face problems in countries?
Yes we do. We face barriers especially Russia, China, Nigeria, Vietnam.

Typically the barriers we face are forced localization of computer services in those countries.

Is the localization of computer service a problem in itself?

No. The EU has obligations to store data locally in certain areas as heath care, gambling transactions. Restricted area that compromise important information. What we are trying to address in trade agreements are horizontal localization requirements that apply to all data without discriminating. These are more driven by digital protectionism more than a rational protection of data.
In our trade agreement we already had precedents on data flows. Those precedents take back at the creation of the WTO and the GATT agreements 1994. So far that precedent, limited until now to financial services, has not created any problems or limited our ability in any sense. In that document there is a document to ensure that financial services information can flow across boarders.

In that document there is an obligation for members, to ensure that financial service information can flow across boarders. We have similar provisions on data flows in other agreements.
What ever we do has to ensure our abilities not just in the present, but mostly in the future. We will have to ensure that the provisions we agree have safeguards inspired on not in those contained currently in the GATTS and the so called commitments on financial services. Currently to give u the state of play, there are proposals on the table (both on data flows and localization of the servers). In both negotiations the discussions are at an infant stage. The Union still has questions on the discipline, and it has questions on the safeguards proposed, to the extend we are still seeking qualifications on those proposals we have not yet proposed our own language to modify these provisions.

 

Giving a business prospective:
Chris Sherwood, Head of Public Policy, Allegro Group (on behalf of Industry Coalition for Data Protection):
From a business perspective, the importance of data flows help us to create something unified to compete with the global players.

The reality is that we need to move data cross boarder on a global base with the minimum of restriction. That’s the business reality that we face. Unfortunately the EU imposes severe restrictions on data flows disadvantaging business companies. The primary restriction is the EU DPD 1995 that will be replace by the new Data Protection Regulation, which in turn will be stricter than the already strictest directive on data protection in the world. Both the directive and the regulation in draft form, are structured as prohibitions of the export of data outside the EU. From the prospective of a company who works outside the EU in many of the countries where we operate these requirements are seen as data localization requirements. We need to be very clear on the way these rules are seen abroad and how they influence our businesses.

Defensive and Offensive issues:
One of the problems we are facing in Europe is the undelaying assumption that the IT sector and the Internet are American. It’s the politics of the spare that believe that Europe is not a leader.
We should rethink our schemes thinking as the EU as a leader in IT technologies, rather than being a consumer of foreign products. When we look at TTIP and
the Snowden revelations one may acknowledge that the revelations have changed the way the US government and industries approaches with data flows and trade agreements. It is quite considerable that European Snowden will occur and let us reconsider these things.
What is really important from our point of view is that European Data protection rules although they are a burden for companies, they are there for a good reason. But many companies in and outside Europe would prefer to not comply, and therefore the rules need to be enforceable. You cannot enforce this rules putting extra territorial provision in the legislation. Extra territorial provisions and legislations lied to unintended consequences. What’s much better would be to encourage foreign companies to comply using co-regulatory approaches.
The safe harbour can be a good example, because it enforced by an authority, which is taken extremely seriously in the USA.

A suspension of the Safe Harbour would damage EU companies, because they would not be prepared anymore to compete in the US. There is no evidence that suspension of safe harbour would enhance the safety of personal data. The fundamental problem here is the way the US government approaches data not the Safe Harbour itself.

Our appeal is to stop calling for the suspension of the safe harbour because it would damage European companies and ensure zero privacy benefit.

Finn Myrstad, Head of the Digital Services Section at the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC= and EU Co-Chair, Information Society Policy Committee, Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue:

 

I have three main messages to the MEP today.

• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Consumers on both sides of the Atlantic are concerned and want more privacy. It is not only EU consumers it is also US consumers.
• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Unlike what was just mentioned about Safe Harbour. We believe Safe Harbour does not provide sufficient enforcement on the US side. Safe Harbour does not provide adequate protection for consumers along with European standard.
• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>We don’t believe that data flows should be tackled in trade agreements without proper safeguards for data protection privacy.

 

Talking about offensive interests. I believe that it is an offensive interest for EU consumers to have control over their personal data, to have transparency to understand the different purposes and benefits of data sharing and to have specific rights concerning the collection and sharing of their data. European consumers totally support to have more data protection in Europe.

You might think that American consumers do not care that much about their privacy. But it is not like this in reality. 90% of consumers believe they have lost control about their personal information. It is very clear that also US consumers are troubled about their data privacy. There is also a second point, consumers make their choices. Research clearly shows that this is not the case. The university of Pennsylvania pointed out that US consumers want more data protection and more clarity on their consensus to gather data and profiling activities. They don’t think it’s fair that on online store can collect profile and store data to improve their services. The system we have at the moment is an opt-out one. There is no trade of at the moment, there is just companies gathering data giving less back. So it’s the consumer who pays a higher price.

An example could be the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook Apple who said: “We believe that customer should be in control of their own information. You might like these so-called free services, but we don’t think they are worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for god knows what advertising purpose. And we think some day, customers will see this for what it is. We believe that people have a fundamental right on privacy. The American people demands it, the constitution demands it, morality demands it.”

One of my messages to you is: raise the floor instead of lowering it. Keep working to fight for better standards in Europe.

About Safe Harbour:

We believe Safe Harbour does not work. It was mentioned that it is taken very seriously on the US side. I don’t believe it is a serious effort. These are principles; they don’t say they need to apply the European law.

Just to say the US system is based on privacy policies, but if a consumer wants to read them all, it would take him up to 25 days to read them all. This is not a clear framework.

Also a report to president Obama this year, noticed that the framework for notice and consent is becoming unworkable as useful foundation for policy. Only in a fantasy world consumers read the policies and understand the implications before clicking.

Conclusion: We have to have a better framework that assures a level playing field for businesses. Trade agreements are not the place to regulate data consumption and privacy.

Panel II: Data flows between the EU and partner countries

 

Paul Nemitz, Director for Fundamental Rights and Union Citizenship, DG Justice and Consumers:

The agreement on these rules in the Council reflects the view of the business representatives mentioned before. Stating that data protection is a burden is as saying that good quality is a burden. If you look at the European car industry they are saying it very clearly, a good data protection will be a positive point in the future, augmenting the quality of the product. On my opinion, the visions presented by Sherwood do not really reflect the ones of European businesses.

What does the regulation brings in terms of ensuring protection in global data flows. It provides a level playing field for businesses in and outside the EU. It strengthens the authority of the Data Protection Supervisor resulting in strengthening the function of the privacy framework. Trust is at the core of a good functioning financial market. That’s why it’s so important that the powers of our data protection authorities are strengthen.

Therefore I’m happy to see that the Council has agreed that the maximum fine will be of 2% of the world turnover. In this new digital world there is no reason to use a different type of methodology when we have to protect millions of consumers.

New provisions on international data flows have been proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council. They will facilitate international flows of data while ensuring a higher level of protection.
Does it make sense to invest in the Safe Harbour?
The Commission has benefitted in the negotiations with the US from the clear position taken by the EP. We have been inspired to seek the highest level of commitment possible from the US on the 13 points the Commission put on the table in November 2013. It is true that US has made a great effort to reach a level of protection on 11 out of 13 recommendations. We in the Commission are very close to consider it as successful.
We need to remember the scope of Safe Harbour: It is to provide Europeans a higher level of protection when their data are exported for processing. Then it exists under existing law. We are seeking from the US commitments, which serve this purpose.

In the contexts of TTIP and TISA, we work very closely together with DG Justice and Commission. We have been working on it intensely for a long time. It is true that EU has a positive trade balance not only in industrial goods but also on services. Let’s not forget that Europe in contrast to the US is also a key exporter in industrial goods, machines cars and so on. For these machines to be develop further, to control the factories it is important that data can flow back to Europe to better control and plan the future investments and developments. We depend on free flow of data. But much of this data are not personal data, so it is important when we talk about digitally deliverable services from Europe we better acknowledge that most of them are not personal data. Let’s get the facts right when we are discussing this.

When we define our interest in global agreements we need to consider the nature of our exports, and the nature of the related data flows to these exports too. It is good to have general formulations on free data flows provided that when it comes to personal data we maintain the ability to act here according to our Charta of fundamental rights.

We need to continue to apply our system of adequacy also related to third countries.. When it comes to generalizing the rules on financial services, I want you to know that these rules goes back in time even before the Data protection directive 1995. When we look at the future texts we need to be sure that the relation between the texts we are comparing is real.

 

Giovannni Buttarelli, European Data Protection Supervisor:

 

My institution is not formally involved but we monitor development closely. That’s why I was pleased to accept the invitation to this important debate today. I would like to share a few main messages:

 

• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>International data flows are a reality:

A necessary motor for globalisation. The EU has been until now a strong advocate of rules-based free trade. The European Parliament has pivotal role in ensuring that it continues to do so. And the reform of this law can be seen as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put international transfers on a clearer footing.

 

• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>Fundamental rights and freedoms are not negotiable.
  Data protection is an important concern when it comes to negotiate commercial agreements such as TTIP. When we look at the TTIP, we can see that there are useful references to shared values in the relevant areas of negotiations, such as human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the right of the EU and the Member States to adopt and enforce measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives.

However we can also see that the text of the mandate is not fully clear.

There is at least some rule for negotiating in areas relevant to data protection. At the same time, there is no precise language in the mandate, which would clearly state that the agreement would be without any prejudice to EU data protection law.

In particular, the mandate specifically covers ‘Information and Communication Technologies’ and ‘financial services’, and aims to ‘ensure the removal of existing NTBs’ (non-tariff barriers), and prevent the adoption of new ones. (ART. 25).

Concerns have been raised with regard to the risk that this may result in watering down existing data protection rules, or in preventing the adoption of further data protection rules in the future.
Junker, has made it clear more than once that fundamental rights are not here to be sold.

The LIBE committee, on its opinion on the TTIP, already emphasised that there is a need for a comprehensive and unambiguous horizontal self-standing provision, based on Article XIV of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), that ‘fully exempts’ the existing and future EU legal framework for the protection of personal data from the scope of the agreement.

 

• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>The EU data protection framework facilitates data flows.

The current EU regulation deems to provide an adequate level of data protection concerning international transfers of personal data. For those cases where the third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection, or, in the case of business sectors which are outside of sectoral decisions, personal data may still be transferred lawfully if there are adequate safeguards.

Together with the Article 29 Working Party, as well as the EDPS, we have been very active on this field especially on the binding rules field. This is a demonstration of the commitment of European data protection in order to facilitate international data transfer and promote accountability.

 

• <!–[if !supportLists]–> <!–[endif]–>My fourth message, relates to the on-going reform on data protection reform and its approach of continuity and change.
  Chapter 5 of the GDPR is related to international transfers. The consensus emerging is characterised by continuity and change.
  ‘Continuity’ because the main principles, such as the adequacy principle, have been maintained.
  ‘Change’ because many rules have to be reinforced, where necessary simplified enough not at the expense of fundamental rights: Binding Corporate Rules, for example, will soon become an explicit part of data protection law. Moreover ‘change’ also because the Reform will replace 29 different national legislations, with an EU Regulation setting down innovations like the one-stop-shop together with proximity.

In a nutshell the EU data protection law should be, and remain, the world standard concerning data protection and data flows worldwide.

Concerning the adequacy principle:
The adequacy system we are facing is in line with article 14 of the GATT.

The EDPS is committed to be, and remain active with you, recognizing the ethical imperative. As a rule of thumb, therefore, personal data rights should continue to be left out of any trade negotiations, and only be referred to, by way of exemption, as set out in Article XIV.

 

 

Anna Fielder, Chair of the Privacy International and Senior Policy Advisor of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue:
I agree with many of the points made. My point is that trade is absolutely not the place for the EU to negotiate the transfer of personal information. I emphasise personal.

First of all trade has been a very positive driver fin encouraging countries to adopt data protection laws. Over 100 countries on all continents have now adopted a general/holistic data protection legislation. Just the US, Pakistan, Panama and Turkey have no regulations yet concerning DPR.

In relation to the TTIP negotiations, of the 12 partners currently negotiating, only Brunei and the US do not have a general data protection law.

Speaking about the US, to be clear, except for a few specific sectors (children, financial, health records and video hire), the processing of personal information for commercial purposes remains largely unregulated on the federal level. The US representatives, including the US Congress, have stated clearly and publicly that their aim is to achieve uniform standards through similar language for personal information transfers in all trade agreements, and that data protection must not be a pretext for protectionism.

By contrast Canada does have strong regulations concerning privacy. Indeed the concluded agreement between the UE and Canada (CETA) contains a general provision in its e-commerce chapter, which calls for respect of privacy laws, both for the private and public sectors, as well as privacy as a fundamental right in its constitution.

The fundamental issue here is that one partner sees the data protection regulation as a barrier and therefore tries to circumvent the majority of other partners’ privacy laws through a binding trade agreement that trumps them all.

A second aspect is related to the report on mass surveillance, recommending the US to revise its legislation without delay to recognize privacy and other rights of EU citizens, and provide for them judicial redress. The US have failed so far to take legislative steps to address concerns about access to the data of EU citizens by the NSA (National Security Agency and others. The ‘Freedom Act’ is a step forward, but only addressed to US citizens. As a consequence foreigners are still discriminated in the US. Equally negotiations on Safe Harbour are still not concluded, neither is the so called “umbrella agreement” which have been going on for years. Under these circumstances there can be no relaxation of data protection safeguards with regards to trans-border data flows.

We need to realize that safeguarding fundamental rights is not a priority in commercial agreements, they are about economic priorities and lowering barriers to trade. In the US trade negotiations are not opened to public debate; they are captured by industry through a combination of complete secrecy with privileged access for just a small part of private industry supervisors.

Our main ask, already put on the table by MR. Myrstad in the previous panel, is to not include personal information transfers in TTIP. If you absolutely have to; than please follow the recommendations of the LIBE committee, and vote for the amendments that follow this recommendation in your resolution.

On TISA, a resolution from the Parliament is also needed. We look forward to a timetable for such a resolution in the near future and are ready to engage.

Finally, a robust new data protection Regulation is long overdue. We find it shameful that after so many years of deliberation, the version produced goes below standards. The Council has found out major loopholes via a system of “approved” codes of conduct and certification schemes without approved coordination and oversight (Articles 38, 39 and 42).

We urge you in the forthcoming months of the trialogue to stick to your guns and not let this important law go beyond the protection of fundamental rights.

We need holistic privacy laws; it’s the most effective way to ensure privacy and fundamental rights protection.

 

Patrick Zingerle

Classé dans:DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Protection des données personnelles

Le 14 juillet, le Conseil ECOFIN a approuvé les six recommandations économiques de la Commission européenne à la France pour les mois à venir. S'il n'est plus question de remontrances comme à l'automne dernier, quand le gouvernement avait dû batailler pour éviter de se retrouver sous le coup d'une procédure pour déficit excessif, le ton de l'institution de Bruxelles reste ferme. Selon la Commission, les efforts de Paris sont importants, mais encore insuffisants pour réduire déficit et dette et de nouvelles réformes de structure, d'inspiration libérale, seront nécessaires.

Général : Le Parlement européen est présent sur Facebook depuis 2009 et la page compte actuellement 1,8 million de « j'aime ». Quelles ont été les publications les plus populaires du premier semestre 2015 ? Découvrez-le dans notre article.

Source : © Union européenne, 2015 - PE

Le 24 juillet dernier, les représentants du Parlement européen ont annoncé la liste des films en compétition pour le prix LUX qui récompense le cinéma européen. Parmi les trois finalistes, une œuvre sort du lot : 'Mustang'.

Depuis les dernières élections européennes, le Parlement compte désormais 751 députés. Ils étaient 766 avant l'application en 2014 de l'article 14 du Traité de Lisbonne qui a fixé un seuil minimum de 6 députés par État membre, chaque pays ne pouvant disposer de plus de 96 sièges (art. 14 TUE).Les députés européens sont élus pour cinq ans renouvelables.

Les députés européens sont élus au suffrage universel direct tous les cinq ans. Depuis les élections européennes de mai 2014, le Parlement européen est composé de 751 eurodéputés répartis entre les 28 Etats membres en fonction du nombre d’habitants. Chaque pays a un nombre fixe de sièges, allant de 96 pour l’Allemagne à 6 pour le Luxembourg, Chypre, l’Estonie et Malte. Ces dernières élections européennes ont légèrement fait diminuer le nombre de sièges, réduisant donc le nombre de députés de certains pays.

The Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, led by Chair Elmar Brok, joined by their colleagues from the Sub-Committee on Human Rights, led by Richard Howitt, and with participation of Andrej Plenkovic, the Chair of the EP delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Association Committee, visited Ukraine on 23 and 24 July.
Further information
Press statement - Kyiv 24 July 2015
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Illustrée d’une carte, voici une présentation détaillée des extrêmes droites et droites radicales en Europe. Bien qu’ayant le vent en poupe sur le plan électoral, les droites radicales européennes peinent à s’allier en raison de divergences stratégiques et idéologiques. C’est là leur véritable faiblesse. Leur force est que de nombreux commentateurs et responsables politiques les considèrent comme un ensemble uni sous la bannière de l’extrême droite. Article publié en partenariat avec le Diploweb.com