39 Amendments of Arnaud DANJEAN related to 2013/2188(INI)
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in September 2001 the world entered a new phase which resulted in the fight against terrorism being listed among the top priorities of most governments; whereas the revelations based on leaked documents from Edward Snowden, former NSA contractor, put democratically electedput political leaders under an obligation to address the challenges of the increasing capabilities of intelligence agencies in surveillance activities and their implications for the rule of law in a democratic society;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas, under the ECHR, Member States’ agencies and even private parties acting in the field of national security under certain circumstances also have to respect the rights enshrined therein, be they of their own citizens or of citizens of other States; whereas this also goes for cooperation with other States’ authorities in the field of national security;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AM
Recital AM
AM. whereas during the LIBE delegation to Washington of 28-31 October 2013 the delegation met with the US Department of the Treasury; whereas the US Treasury officially stated that since the entry into force of the TFTP Agreethe US government (the NSA is in that sense considered part of the government it) hads not had access to data from SWIFT in the EU except within the framework of the TFTP; whereas the US Treasury refused to comment on whether SWIFT data would have been accessed outside TFTP by any obeen collecting and processing SWIFT data in any other way than as recognised in the agreement, whereas the US Department of the Treasury also gave assurances in relation to access to SWIFT formatted messages in accordance with other legal tools in place; whereas ther US government body or departDepartment of the Treasury did not comment or n whether the US administrationor not it was aware of NSA mass surveillance activities; whereas on 18 Dec24 September 2013 Mr Glenn GreenwEuropol and SWIFT officialds stated before the LIBE Committee inquiry that the NSA and GCHQ had targeted SWIFT networksre were no indications for a breach of the TFTP Agreement by the NSA;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AP
Recital AP
AP. whereas the Joint Review fails to mention the fact that iArticle 13 of the agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the cause of proceassieng of personal data for intelligence purposes, under US law, non- US citizens do not enjoy any judicial or administrative avenue to protect their rights, and constitutional protections are only granted to US persons; whereas this lack of judicial or administrative rights nullifies the protections for EU citizens laid down in the existing PNR agreementer name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security allows any individual regardless of nationality, country or origin, or place of residence, whose personal data and personal information has been processed and used in a manner inconsistent with the PNR Agreement, to seek effective administrative and judicial redress in accordance with US law;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that recent revelations in the press by whistleblowers and journalists, together with the expert evidence given during this inquiry, have resulted in compelling evidence of the existence of far-reaching, complex and highly technologically advanced systems designed by US and some Member States’ intelligence services to collect, store and analyse communication and location data and metadata of all citizens around the world on an unprecedented scale and in an indiscriminate and non-suspicion-based manner; recalls the importance of strengthening the existing structures in the Member States against mass surveillance; therefore considers of utmost importance a decentralised structure for the purpose of data retention;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points specifically to US NSA intelligence programmes allowing for the mass surveillance of EU citizens through direct access to the central servers of leading US internet companies (PRISM programme), the analysis of content and metadata (Xkeyscore programme), the circumvention of online encryption (BULLRUN), access to computer and telephone networks and access to location data, as well as to systems of the UK intelligence agency GCHQ such as its upstream surveillance activity (Tempora programme) and decryption programme (Edgehill); believes that the existence of programmes of a similar nature, even if on a more limited scale, is likely in other EU countries such as France (DGSE), Germany (BND) and Sweden (FRA);
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Questions the compatibility of some Member States’ mapossivble economic espionage activities with the EU internal market and competition law as enshrined in Title I and Title VII of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; reaffirms the principle of sincere cooperation as enshrined in Article 4 paragraph 3 of the Treaty on European Union and the principle that the Member States shall ‘refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives’;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is adamant that secret laws, treaties and courts violate the rule of law; pPoints out that any judgment of a court or tribunal and any decision of an administrative authority of a non-EU state authorising, directly or indirectly, surveillance activities such as those examined by this inquiry may not be automatically recognised or enforced, but must be submitted individually to the appropriate national procedures on mutual recognition and legal assistance, including rules imposed by bilateral agreements;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regards it as a clear finding, as emphasised by the technology experts who testified before the inquiry, that at the current stage of technological development there is no guarantee, either for EU public institutions or for citizens, that their IT security or privacy can be protected from intrusion by well-equipped third countries or EU intelligence agencies (‘no 100% IT security’); notes that this alarming situation can only be remedied if Europeans are willing to dedicate sufficient resources, both human and financial, to preserving Europe’'s independence and self-reliance;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Strongly rejects the notion that these issues are purely a matter of national security and therefore the sole competence of Member States; recalls a recent ruling of the Court of Justice according to which ‘although it is for Member States to take the appropriate measures to ensure their internal and external security, the mere fact that a decision concerns State security cannot result in European Union law being inapplicable’38 ; recalls furtherRecalls that the protection of the privacy of all EU citizens is at stake, as are the security and reliability of all EU communication networks; believes therefore that discussion and action at EU level is not only legitimate, but also a matter of EU autonomy and sovereigntcan be deemed necessary; __________________ 38 No 1 BvR 518/02 of 4 April 2006.
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Commends the current discussions, inquiries and reviews concerning the subject of this inquiry in several parts of the world; points to the Global Government Surveillance Reform signed up to by the world’s leading technology companies, which calls for sweeping changes to national surveillance laws, including an international ban on bulk collection of data to help preserve the public’s trust in the internet; notes with great interest the recommendations published recently by the US President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies; strongly urges governments to take these calls and recommendations fully into account and to overhaul their national frameworks for the intelligence services in order to implement appropriate safeguards and oversight;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Commends the institutions and experts who have contributed to this inquiry; deplores the fact that several Member States’ authorities have declined to cooperate with the inquiry the European Parliament has been conducting on behalf of citizens; welcomes the openness of several Members of Congress and of national parliaments;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Intends to request strong political undertakings from the European Commission to be designated after the May 2014 elections to implemetake into account the proposals and recommendations of this Inquiry; expects adequate commitment from the candidates in the upcoming parliamentary hearings for the new Commissioners;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on certain EU Member States, including the UK, Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, to revise whereif necessary their national legislation and practices governing the activities of intelligence services so as to ensure that they are in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and comply with their fundamental rights obligations as regards data protection, privacy and presumption of innocence; in particular, given the extensive media reports referring to mass surveillance in the UK, would emphasise that the current legal framework which is made up of a ‘complex interaction’ between three separate pieces of legislation – the Human Rights Act 1998, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 – should be revised;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on Member States to take appropriate action immediately, including court action, against the breach of their sovereignty, and thereby the violation of general public international law, perpetrated through the mass surveillance programmes; calls further on EU Member States to make use of all available international measures to defend EU citizens’' fundamental rights, notably by triggering the inter-state complaint procedure under Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Takes the view that the information provided by the European Commission and the US Treasury does not clarify whether US intelligence agencies have access to SWIFT financial messages in the EU by intercepting SWIFT networks or banks’ operating systems or communication networks, alone or in cooperation with EU national intelligence agencies and without having recourse to existing bilateral channels for mutual legal assistance and judicial cooperationclarify that there were no elements showing that the US Government has acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Agreement, and that the US has provided written assurance that no direct data collection has taken place contrary to the provisions of the TFTP Agreement;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Calls on the Council Presidency and the majority of Member States who support a high level of data protection to show a sense of leadership and responsibility andto accelerate their work on the whole Data Protection Package to allow for adoption in 2014, so that EU citizens will be able to enjoy better protection in the very near future;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Calls on the Commission to present, by September 2014, a proposal for an EU security clearance procedure for all EU office holders, as a complement to the current system, which relies on the security clearance undertaken by the Member State of citizenship, provides for different requirements and lengths of procedures within national systems, thus leading to differing treatment of Members of Parliament and their staff depending on their nationality;
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Recalls the provisions of the interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament and the Council concerning the forwarding to and handling by the European Parliament of classified information held by the Council on matters other than those in the area of the common foreign and security policy that should be used to improve oversight at EU level;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Calls on the Europol Joint Supervisory Body, together with national data protection authorities, to conduct a joint inspectionreview before the end of 2014 in order to ascertain whether information and personal data shared with Europol has been lawfully acquired by national authorities, particularly if the information or data was initially acquired by intelligence services in the EU or a third country, and whether appropriate measures are in place to prevent the use and further dissemination of such information or data;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
Amendment 445 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 102
Paragraph 102
102. Insists that necessary reforms be undertaken and effective guarantees given to Europeans to ensure that the use of surveillance and data processing for foreign intelligence purposes is limited by clearly specified conditions and related to reasonable suspicion or probable cause of terrorist or criminal activity; stresses that this purpose must be subject to transparent judicial oversight;
Amendment 450 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103
Paragraph 103
Amendment 455 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107
Paragraph 107
107. Also believes that that the involvement and activities of EU Members States has led to a loss of trust; is of the opinion that only full clarity as to purposes and means of surveillance, public debate and, ultimately, revision of legislation, including a strengthening of the system of judicial and parliamentary oversight, will be able to re-establish the trust lost;
Amendment 462 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108
Paragraph 108
108. Is awareNotes that some EU Member States are pursuing bilateral communication with the US authorities on spying allegations, and that some of them have concluded (United Kingdom) or envisage concluding (Germany, France) so-called ‘anti-spying’ arrangements; underlines that these Member States need to observe fully the interests of the EU as a whole;
Amendment 484 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – introductory part
Paragraph 114 – introductory part
114. Decides to launch A European Digital Habeas Corpus for protecting privacy based on the following 7 actions with a European Parliament watchdog:
Amendment 495 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 4
Paragraph 114 – point 4
Action 4: Suspend the TFTP agreement until (i) the Umbrella Agreement negotiations have been concluded; (ii) a thorough investigation has been concluded on the basis of an EU analysis, and all concerns raised by Parliament in its resolution of 23 October have been properly addressedto conclude the on-going negotiations on a data protection agreement for law enforcement purposes ("umbrella agreement") soon as possible;
Amendment 501 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 – point 5
Paragraph 114 – point 5
Action 5: Protect the rule of law and, the fundamental rights of EU citizens, with a particular focus on threats to the freedom of the press and professional confidentiality (including lawyer-client relations) as well as enhanced protection for whistleblowers;
Amendment 509 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 115 – introductory part
Paragraph 115 – introductory part
115. Calls on the EU Institutions and the Member States to support and promote the European Digital Habeas Corpus; undertakes to act as the EU citizens’ rights watchdog, with the following timetable to monitor implementation:
Amendment 518 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 115 – point 4
Paragraph 115 – point 4