Activities of Saskia BRICMONT related to 2022/2121(DEC)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) for the financial year 2021
Amendments (5)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Welcomes the establishment of the Europol Data Protection Experts Network (EDEN), used as a channel to present projects, best practices and events linked to data protection in a law enforcement context;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Welcomes the signature of a memorandum of understanding with the Fundamental Rights Agency which would contribute to ensure Europols’s compliance with fundamental rights; believes that such memorandum can contribute to the improvement of the Europol’s compliance with fundamental rights;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the reported weaknesses in management and control systems, namely two cases of potential conflict of interest situation in relation to a senior manager taking up a job elsewhere, when Europol did not issue its decision within the deadline and thus effectively authorised the person concerned to take up the new job without any restrictions and in contravention of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations; recalls however that Europol has specific provisions covering the risk of ‘revolving door’ situations in relation to members of its board and requests that such provisions are fully implemented to prevent any potential future ‘revolving door’ case;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that on 16 September 2022, the EDPS requested that the Court of Justice of the European Union annul two provisions of the revised Europol Regulation, namely Articles 74a and 74b, as they seriously undermine legal certainty for individuals’ personal data and threaten the independence of the EDPS; reminds that articles 74a and 74b have the effect of legalising retroactively Europol’s practice of processing large volumes of individuals’ personal data with no established link to criminal activity, which the EDPS found to be in breach of Europol’s Regulation; reiterates its utmost concerns regarding the impact on individuals’ fundamental rights of the facts revealed by the EDPS in the “big data challenge” inquiry, admonishment decision and order; deplores that the solution to the concerns raised by the EDPS has been to codify the continuity of Europol’s activities instead of proving the mechanisms to ensure that fundamental rights and data protection are fully respected; expresses deep regret that the decision which include Articles 74a and 74b in the new Europol’s Regulation has not been accompanied by enhanced safeguards for individuals and adequate accountability mechanisms for the Agency; recalls with concern the allegations that Europol contains at least 4 petabytes of personal data, which is equivalent to 3m CD-Roms or a fifth of the entire contents of the US Library of Congress; underlines the concerns raised by data protection advocates regarding the volume of information held on Europol’s systems, which according to them, amounts to mass surveillance and, therefore, similar practices compared to the US National Security Agency (NSA);
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is concerned about the enhanced and non-transparent cooperation between Europol and Frontex; reminds the reports about Frontex’s PeDRA program ‘Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis', which allows Frontex border guards to collect sensitive personal data from migrants and asylum seekers, including genetic data and information on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, to process and share it with Europol and security agencies of Member States, and to scan social media profiles; requests that cooperation among JHA Agency is fully transparenexpresses deep concern that this expanded surveillance programme not only targets non-suspects, but also loosens restrictions concerning the exchange of personal data between Frontex and Europol as personal sensitive data are transferred in bulk to Europol, in contrast with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and purpose limitation; requests that cooperation among Europol and other JHA Agencies take place in accordance with applicable data protection law, is fully transparent and subject to an adequate framework of oversight and accountability ensured; calls on the Agency to take measures to ensure full compliance with EU transparency rules as well as with fundamental rights, and with data protection standards; in particular; considers that the disclosure of meetings and interactions between the Agency and third parties is required to ensure enhanced transparency.