18 Amendments of Beatrix von STORCH related to 2016/3018(RSP)
Amendment 9 #
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Acknowledges that a French privacy advocacy group, La Quadrature du Net, has challenged the Adequacy Decision in a legal action to the CJEU claiming that the U.S. Ombudsman redress mechanism is not sufficiently independent and effective and therefore the Adequacy Decision must be annulled;
Amendment 12 #
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Acknowledges that there is a pending proceeding in the Irish High Court initiated by the Irish Data Protection Authority challenging the Adequacy Decision relating to the Standard Contractual Clauses (another mechanism to transfer personal data out of the EU) which may subsequently be referred to the CJEU;
Amendment 14 #
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Acknowledges that Digital Rights Ireland (DRI) brought an action against the Commissions Adequacy Decision to the CJEU in which DRI claims that the Adequacy Decision of the European Commission regarding the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is null and void as it does not provide a level of data protection equivalent to the level of data protection established by European data protection law;
Amendment 17 #
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to halt implementation of the decision in light of these several challenges and the seriousness of the allegations contained therein;
Amendment 19 #
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Recalls that by failing to fully transpose the rights contained in Directive 95/46 (specifically at Article 14 and 15), the implementing decision, on its face, fails to adequately ensure that the European Union citizens’ rights under EU law are fully provided for where their data is transferred to the United States of America;
Amendment 24 #
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls that insofar as the implementing decision allows, or in the alternative fails and has failed to safeguard against indiscriminate access to electronic communications by foreign law enforcement authorities, and fails to provide an adequate remedy to EU citizens whose personal data is thus accessed, it denies the individual the right to an Effective Remedy and the right to Good Administration, contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the General Principles of EU Law;
Amendment 29 #
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recalls that the contested decision is incompatible with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 33 #
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that, as regards national security and surveillance, notwithstanding the clarifications brought by the Director of National Intelligence Office in the letters attached to the Privacy Shield framework, “bulk surveillance”, despite the different terminology used by the U.S. authorities, remains possiblenot only possible but likely, given U.S. intelligence services blatant disregard for privacy of not only foreign citizens but its own as revealed by the whistleblower, Edward Snowden;
Amendment 37 #
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls that by failing to fully transpose the provisions contained in Directive 95/46 (specifically Article 28(3)), the implementing decision, on its face, fails to adequately ensure that the European Union citizens’ rights under EU law are fully provided for where their data is transferred to the United States of America;
Amendment 44 #
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls that the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 constitute legislation permitting public authorities to have secret access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications and consequently are not concordant with Article 47 of the Charter Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 49 #
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recalls that the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 (‘FISA Amendments Act of 2008’) constitute legislation permitting pubic authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications and consequently are not concordant with Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 50 #
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Recalls that the ‘privacy principles’ and/or the official (US) ‘representations and commitments’ contained in Annexes I, III to VII of the contested decision do not constitute ‘international commitments’ within the meaning of Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46;
Amendment 52 #
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Recalls that the implementing decision is not in accordance with Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 57 #
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Commission to repeal the implementing decision declaring the adequacy of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and to refrain from adopting similar decisions;
Amendment 62 #
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Calls for each Member State that desires a data sharing agreement system to negotiate and create its own data protection systems in accordance with their respective national requirements, democratic principles and laws;
Amendment 66 #
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Invites civil society within Member States to launch a European Citizens Initiative in accordance with Article 24(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the spirit of direct democracy, to raise awareness and create a dialogue with the peoples of the EU Member States on Privacy Shield so that any such agreement complies with the concerns raised by the peoples of the Member States;
Amendment 69 #
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Recalls its follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens, paragraph 1a, and again urge Member States to drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender;
Amendment 70 #
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Acknowledges the Snowden revelations, without which the Safe Harbour agreement would likely stand and therefore violate the rights of the peoples of the EU’s Member States without their knowledge or consent