Full text 
Procedure : 2013/2188(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0139/2014

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 11/03/2014 - 14
CRE 11/03/2014 - 14

Votes :

PV 12/03/2014 - 8.23

Texts adopted :


Tuesday, 11 March 2014 - Strasbourg Revised edition

14. US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and impact on EU citizens' fundamental rights (debate)
Video of the speeches

  La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport de Claude Moraes, au nom de la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, sur le programme de surveillance de la NSA, les organismes de surveillance dans divers États membres et les incidences sur les droits fondamentaux des citoyens européens et sur la coopération transatlantique en matière de justice et d'affaires intérieures (2013/2188(INI) (A7-0139/2014).


  Claude Moraes, rapporteur. - Madam President, when we began this inquiry six months ago into the revelations of Edward Snowden and the campaign of the Guardian newspaper, it was an extremely difficult and sensitive and ambitious inquiry to conduct. The precedent we had was the Echelon inquiry and the CIA renditions inquiry, and we had a huge task on our hands. But what was important about the inquiry was that it was different, and the narrative was different from any inquiry undertaken by any Member State because of what we have just heard.

And what we have just heard is that the European Union is unique, and this House is unique in that we were a mature Parliament which was already legislating on the data protection regulation and the directive. So we were a parliament that was already dealing with one set of privacy rights internationally and with the digital economy. So while the Snowden revelations were raging, we in this House were already equipped to deal with privacy rights and the whole area of data protection law.

What my colleagues and I have tried to do in this inquiry, given that we only had six months and that we had an extraordinary set of sensitive issues to deal with, was to take Edward Snowden’s revelations (and he has given evidence in the last few days) – all of the sensitivities around the spying allegations and espionage, and the many stories in the press – and to ensure that from that situation we worked together across the political groups to have the most in-depth inquiry, I believe, anywhere in the world.

In six months we ensured that we went to Washington and that we had accountability here amongst whistleblowers, Parliamentary scrutiny bodies, intelligence bodies, and a whole range of players and actors here in Brussels and Strasbourg.

We ensured at the end of that process that, together with my shadows – and I want to mention all of them: Mr[nbsp ]Voss, Ms in[nbsp ]‘t Veld, Ms[nbsp ]Ernst, Mr[nbsp ]Albrecht, Mr[nbsp ]Kirkhope – and our colleagues from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, all of us who worked tirelessly over those many hours to ensure that, at the end of that process of the Snowden revelations and many hours of interviews, we looked into what intelligence services were doing. But we also understood that we had to come up with a digital bill of rights.

It is a testament to this report that in many parts of the Member States across the European Union, in many political parties and in many Member States, the issue of the digital bill of rights and a digital habeus corpus is being spoken of. They are in fact referring to our report, and in doing so they are referring to what we learned in the Echelon report, which was that we can carry out an in-depth inquiry in this House but that we must make something of it and we must make something lasting of it.

There is so much expertise and commitment here in the European Union on issues of privacy and fundamental rights – but how do we make it last? So what we have created from the Edward Snowden allegations, the witnesses and the interviews – Jim Sensenbrenner the Congressman, who created the Patriot Act but told us now that we need to do something about what the NSA is saying, and President Obama, who told us that on the one hand he wants to protect US citizens but foreshadowed what is happening to foreign persons – in all of that we had to create this digital bill of rights or digital habeus corpus.

So we created a number of actions. First of all, to conclude the EU-US Umbrella Agreement guaranteeing the fundamental rights of citizens to privacy and data protection; to suspend Safe Harbour until a full review has been conducted and current loopholes are remedied; to ensure that we suspend TFTP until the Umbrella Agreement and negotiations have been concluded and a thorough investigation has been concluded on the basis of an EU analysis; to evaluate any agreement mechanism or exchange with third countries involving personal data in order to ensure that the right to privacy and to the protection of personal data is not violated due to surveillance activities and to take the necessary follow-up actions.

I will finish in just 30 seconds.

To protect the rule of law and fundamental rights of EU citizens, including threats to freedom of the press, the right of the public to receive impartial information and professional confidentiality, including lawyer/client relations as well as ensuring enhanced protection for whistle-blowers.

The Snowden revelations gave us a chance to react to those revelations. Tomorrow, in a unified way, I hope we will turn those reactions into the first stage of a digital bill of rights. Let us have a unified vote tomorrow to ensure we have turned this into something positive and lasting into the next mandate of this Parliament, a data protection bill of rights that we can all be proud of.


  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, in recent months we have been confronted with a number of increasingly worrying leaks, media reports and allegations related to secret US surveillance programmes impacting on the privacy and personal data of EU citizens.

The disclosure of information about the surveillance programmes operated by the US National Security Agency (NSA) has understandably raised a number of complex questions and serious concerns about its effects on EU citizens. These concerns have been expressed at both EU and Member State level and relate, inter alia, in particular to the important issue of the protection of personal data.

In response to these revelations, this House has set up the Inquiry by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) into mass surveillance practices, and I understand that you will vote tomorrow on the report, which has been drawn up following very intensive work in the LIBE Committee.

It is clear that considerable effort has gone into preparing this report, and I would like to take this opportunity to warmly congratulate Mr Claude Moraes and his shadow rapporteurs on such a substantial and serious piece of work. Your report has achieved a careful balance between the reasons for acting in this area and the reasons for not taking any action. It advances the idea of a so-called European digital habeas corpus on protecting fundamental rights in a digital age.

It does not make a lot of sense for me to comment now on the eight action points which are recommended in this report, since the report has not yet been discussed in the Council. On some of the recommendations, such as those on the EU-US Umbrella Agreement or the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme Agreement (TFTP), it is for the Commission to act.

The same holds true for the US Safe Harbour, which is a Commission decision and on which I already addressed this House back in January. I indicated then that we very much support the Commission’s initiative to make contacts with the US in order to seek improvements to the shortcomings the Commission has identified in its Communication on Safe Harbour, most of which – by the way – are not specific to NSA surveillance practices.

The report of this House – your report – rightly underscores that the process of increasing mass surveillance has not been subject to any prior public, democratic debate. We therefore welcome today’s debate and the process which you have initiated through this report. We are also listening with interest to the democratic debate that is going on on the other side of the Atlantic. We have noted that the report and recommendations of the Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technologies set up by President Obama has prompted very lively discussions in Washington.

This brings us to the heart of the matter. The impact of the NSA mass surveillance practices on EU citizens and residents has, understandably, raised significant concerns in Europe. It is the fundamental rights of our citizens that are at stake. At the same time it is the right and duty of all states – including our closest ally and partner, the United States of America – to protect their nation against terrorist and other attacks on their sovereignty. An appropriate balance can and should be found.

I agree with the rapporteur that discussion is needed on the purpose and scale of surveillance and its place in a democratic society. However, we should not create the illusion that the European Union alone can decide on these matters. The public debate that is taking place in the United States will be equally important to our concerns. We therefore particularly welcome President Obama’s launch of a review of US surveillance programmes.

The only way to address these different issues is through open and constructive dialogue with the US. We would encourage all those concerned to continue and widen our discussions to ensure that we are able together to achieve an appropriate balance between respect for the fundamental rights of individual citizens and the importance of ensuring that our wider considerations are also adequately protected.




  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr President, let me begin by thanking Claude Moraes for his dedication and excellent work on the report before us today. I would also like to thank his colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs and co-authors, because Parliament – and mainly its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) – had a lot of work to do to have an informed inquiry and produce a comprehensive report in a very short time frame.

The issues which are raised in this report are crucial; they hinge around the adverse impact that large-scale government surveillance has on the privacy and data protection rights of our citizens. The debate in recent months on these fundamental rights has been remarkable and has taken place – as the Presidency just said – not only in Europe but also on the other side of the Atlantic.

Last July, I first stood here in this Chamber to discuss with you the possible EU response to the US surveillance allegations that had only just surfaced. These allegations had shaken our trust in governments, companies and the digital economy – trust between allies and in the transatlantic relationship. Things have moved quite fast since then, and Europe’s response has been clear.

Last January, on the occasion of Data Protection Day, I made the case that the appropriate solution for restoring trust in transatlantic relations and in the way that companies and governments handle citizens’ data is a data protection compact for Europe. I have already shared with you the details of the Commission’s proposed actions, outlined in two communications adopted last November, where we identified the main steps that will help us to allay these concerns.

But I believe that they are worth repeating, as they have a strong bearing on the action plan for the European Digital Habeas Corpus and the recommendations that you are proposing in the report you are voting on. The Commission is already actively pursuing many of the avenues that you are proposing in your action plan. Let me highlight the main features and update you on this issue.

I do not need to speak very much on the data protection reform, because we just had a debate on this. On Safe Harbour: as you know, the European Commission has already conducted a thorough analysis of its functioning, and it has come to the conclusion that Safe Harbour may not be so safe. It has submitted a thirteen-point to-do list to our US counterparts to solve by summer. Our discussions with our US counterparts on each of our thirteen recommendations have reached the half-way point; the USA is listening carefully to our concerns and making constructive efforts to reduce the loopholes we have identified in our assessment. We believe that progress can be made within the time frame set out by the communication – that means by summer this year.

But let me be very clear on this. We stand firm in our position that all recommendations must be addressed. The thirteen points, including the one on national security, must be addressed before we can grant Safe Harbour a clean bill of health. In this context, access to Safe Harbour data on grounds of national security is, of course, a key issue. The US must provide the EU with convincing assurances that the exemption contained in the Safe Harbour decision remains an exemption and does not become the rule. It is now time to implement the announcements of President Obama regarding extending protection to Europeans.

As regards the Umbrella Agreement, the Commission has not faltered in its negotiations with the US. You know that, because I have regularly informed Parliament of our advances or non-advances on this file. Our last round of negotiations took place at the end of February. The next one will be held in the coming weeks, and we are available to debrief the LIBE Committee on the state of play.

We all know that this agreement will be an important avenue of cooperation in the law enforcement sector. We are determined to achieve a successful outcome that guarantees a high level of protection for citizens, who should benefit from the same enforceable rights on both sides of the Atlantic. The US also recognises its importance. At the last EU-US Ministerial meeting in Washington in November, both sides reaffirmed their mutual commitment to stepping up the pace, and Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated his commitment to resolving the outstanding issues, including judicial redress.

The political momentum is there, and we are aiming for a swift conclusion by summer. I think this is achievable. In this context, I was encouraged by the constructive signals given in President Obama’s speech in January. Of course, it will take more than words and a speech to rebuild trust. I hope that words turn into action. The EU-US Summit will be an opportunity to gauge whether the US is ready to do what it takes to conclude the negotiations on the Umbrella Agreement.

We will also ask for binding commitments from the US to use formal channels of cooperation, such as a mutual legal assistance agreement or other sectoral agreements concerning accessing data held by private companies located in the EU. Your report emphasises the need to develop an independent and secure European IT framework and for the EU to take the lead in Internet governance.

The Commission shares the goal of developing a robust framework, one that not only ensures and enhances privacy and data protection but is secure and immune to criminal cyber-attacks and invasive surveillance. This is all the more important, given that personal data today fuel our technology-driven economy and the global markets. The Commission proposals for a network and information security directive and the associated public-private platform that has been established are already significant steps in that direction. The measures included in the directive will not only help to diminish the threat of cyber-attacks, they will also make large-scale surveillance and various forms of spying considerably more difficult.

The Commission fully supports the need to speed up the work of the European cloud partnership. In fact, the recommendations produced by the steering board of the European cloud partnership will be delivered very soon. Their vision for a trusted cloud Europe will provide important additional elements for future policy-related activities in the field of cloud computing.

The Commission also recently adopted a communication on Internet policy and governance. It considers that the Internet should remain a single, open, free, unfragmented network of networks subject to the same laws and norms that apply in other areas of our day-to-day lives. Its governance should be based on an inclusive, transparent and accountable model of governance.

Let me once again congratulate Parliament on bringing this issue into an open public debate. I am looking forward to working together with you on this subject, because with this debate we will not have finished our job. Our job is only beginning.


  President. - Having heard the Council and Commission, can I just make a very brief observation? Mr Kourkoulas, in your remarks I think I heard you make some adverse comment about activities on the other side of ‘the Channel’. I think you meant to say on the other side of ‘the Atlantic’. One might refer to the United Kingdom and the other to the United States: close allies but not always identical in this regard. Perhaps you would like to check the record and have your staff adjust it if I am right. The United Kingdom is, of course, subject to the Treaty of Rome and its successor Treaties, like it or not. And I do like it.


  Axel Voss, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Für die EVP steht fest: Der Schutz personenbezogener Daten ist ein Grundrecht und muss auch gelebte Realität für die Bürger Europas bleiben. Unser Ziel ist deshalb auch, dass überall dort, wo Daten europäischer Bürger verarbeitet werden, europäisches Recht gelten muss.

Niemand, der politische Verantwortung trägt, kann ernsthaft bestreiten, dass das, was wir in diesem Verfahren, in dieser Untersuchung, über die NSA zur Kenntnis nehmen mussten, ganz grundsätzliche Fragen aufwirft. Es geht darum, in welchem Verhältnis zur Gefahr wir die Mittel wählen, wenn wir diese Gefahr beseitigen oder ihr begegnen wollen. Freiheit und Sicherheit müssen – das ist eine alte Weisheit hier im Hause – immer wieder durch Recht und Gesetz ausbalanciert werden. Diese Ideen, die wir im Bericht haben, sind deshalb gut. Wir schaffen es hier auch, in Anspielung auf die Richtlinie von eben, nicht nur eine progressive Mehrheit ohne die EVP zu gestalten, sondern dass wir das eben auch als Grundlage hinbekommen sollten, mit der EVP zusammen, wie auch in dem anderen Bericht.

Letztlich stehen wir doch im Moment an einer Art Wendepunkt. Wir müssen uns nämlich fragen, ob wir in Zukunft für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger noch für Privatsphäre sorgen können oder nicht. Auf dem Spiel steht hier letztlich nichts Geringeres als die Frage der Menschenwürde, Menschenrechte, das Selbstbestimmungsrecht, aber auch der Anspruch auf eine geschützte Privatsphäre. Die ist durch zweierlei Entwicklungen in Frage gestellt: Einmal durch die Massenausspähung durch die NSA oder geheimdienstliche Tätigkeit, aber auf der anderen Seite eben auch durch die privaten Datenkraken, die Internetgiganten. Deshalb ist es richtig, aus dieser Sicht das Safe-Harbour-Abkommen auszusetzen oder aufzuheben, weil ich auch der Überzeugung bin, dass wir es nicht durch die Empfehlungen der Kommission in einer Art und Weise heilen können, in der wir vernünftig Grenzen setzen können. Deshalb meine ich, müssen wir da ganz anders herangehen.

Hilfreich in diesem Fall ist es eben, Bausteine zu suchen, wie wir die Privatsphäre für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger sicherer machen können. Das wollen wir durch eine IT-Unabhängigkeit gegenüber anderen Ländern versuchen. Da ist es wiederum nicht hilfreich, wenn man immer wieder Herrn Snowden mit diesem Bericht in Verbindung bringt, der sich eigentlich mit ganz anderen Inhalten zusammenbringt.

Deshalb ist es, was die transatlantische Partnerschaft angeht, wichtig, dass wir uns mit den USA darüber unterhalten. Das, was wir mit ihnen besprechen müssen, ist im Grunde die Partnerschaft mit den USA hinsichtlich Terrorbekämpfung, Kriminalitätsbekämpfung. Das ist weiterhin von überragender Bedeutung. Deshalb ist es hier meines Erachtens nicht richtig, das TFTP-Programm aufzuheben, weil es eben gerade die Balance, die wir zwischen Sicherheit und Datenschutz haben wollen, beschreibt und weil es eben nicht der Massenüberwachung oder Ausspähung unterliegt. Deshalb würde ich alle darum bitten, hier die Kriminalität und die Terrorbekämpfung durch das TFTP-Programm zu unterstützen, weil wir es für richtig halten, die Finanzierung des Terrors zu betrachten.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Lieber Axel Voss, Sie sagen, hier geht es um eine Balance zwischen einerseits Sicherheitsinteressen und andererseits dem Datenschutz. Aber geht es nicht in dieser Untersuchung viel mehr darum, dass das Recht, das wir entschieden haben, gebrochen wurde, und zwar in allen Staaten in der Europäischen Union und in den Vereinigten Staaten? Und das hat übrigens auch die US-Regierung offenbar schon anerkannt. Also fallen wir jetzt hinter die US-Regierung zurück und reden gar nicht mehr darüber, dass ein Rechtsbruch stattgefunden hat?

Und mal ganz davon abgesehen, Sie sagen auch, Edward Snowden sollten wir nicht in den Bericht bringen. Ja worüber würden wir denn heute reden, wenn Edward Snowden diese Dokumente nicht an die Öffentlichkeit gebracht hätte?


  Axel Voss (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Albrecht! Natürlich sind wir dankbar, dass Edward Snowden dies aufgebracht hat, damit wir uns mit dieser Erkenntnis, die wir heute haben, damit beschäftigen können.

Aber es ist eine ganz andere Frage nach der Überschrift, die wir uns hier selber gegeben haben, – der Massenausspähung – ein individuelles Schicksal damit zu verbinden und umzulenken auf eine Frage, die gar nicht diesen Bericht betrifft. Wir sollten uns in der Tat viel mehr mit unseren Bürgern und Bürgerinnen und ihrer Privatsphäre beschäftigen, als mit dieser anderen Frage, die man durch einen anderen Initiativantrag oder wie auch immer vielleicht hier ins Plenum bringen kann.

Aber das Ablenken in dieser Frage auf diesen Sachverhalt bringt uns überhaupt nicht weiter. Es hätte uns eigentlich viel besser zu Gesichte gestanden, uns mit dem zu beschäftigen, was unsere Aufgabe ist, als immer nur diese eine Frage zu beantworten, die uns nicht voranbringt.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor Presidente, las revelaciones acerca del espionaje masivo de la Agencia Nacional de Seguridad estadounidense produjeron preocupación y escándalo en millones de ciudadanos a los que este Parlamento representa. Por tanto, se hizo lo correcto encomendando a la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior una investigación que ha conducido en los últimos seis meses y en la que ha trabajado al límite de su capacidad. Y las conclusiones son elocuentes.

En primer lugar, hay que completar el paquete de protección de datos, pero, en segundo lugar, hay que suspender el Acuerdo Safe Harbour y el Acuerdo SWIFT e introducir un protocolo de protección de datos en el ATCI que se está negociando con los Estados Unidos. Del mismo modo, hay que exigir a los Estados Unidos reciprocidad en el acceso al sistema judicial con garantía de derechos en las mismas condiciones en que los estadounidenses acceden a la justicia europea, hay que garantizar la confidencialidad de las comunicaciones de y entre las instituciones europeas, pero, además hay que asegurar un código de conducta en la inteligencia exterior que asegure la privacidad de esos millones de ciudadanos libres de toda sospecha de estar involucrados en ninguna actividad delictiva, no digamos terrorista.

Y, por último, hay que promover una legislación protectora de los llamados whistleblowers, es decir, los que decidan cooperar con la justicia delatando las actividades ilícitas de inteligencia de las que hubieran tenido conocimiento en su desempeño profesional.

Pero lo importante aquí —aunque no me alegra decirlo— es que el Parlamento Europeo ha sido la única institución representativa de los ciudadanos que ha estado a la altura de su compromiso con los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos y, particularmente, con la garantía de su privacidad, que ha sido violada masivamente por este programa de inteligencia de los Estados Unidos.


  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all, a big thank you to the rapporteur, Claude Moraes, who did a great job, and to the fellow shadow rapporteurs. I am very proud that this Parliament is the only Parliament, and the only institution in Europe, that has raised this issue, and with very limited means we conducted the inquiry, whereas the Council has been shamefully silent. It has not even been officially put on the Council’s agenda. A massive violation of the rights of European citizens is being ignored by the Council. Shame on you!

There is a certain irony, colleagues, in the fact that at this very moment the US Congress is in session because Ms Feinstein, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee, found out that the CIA has actually also hacked into the computers of the US Congress. Ms Feinstein is not amused, because apparently there are limits to the activities of secret services: secret services across the Atlantic, but also within the European Member States and also, incidentally, within our neighbour, Russia, which have been acting like cowboys over the last few years. Because that is what we are talking about.

They have no business monitoring millions of innocent citizens, like a giant Peeping Tom. They enter the most intimate part of our private lives, even through our own webcams. It is a bloody shame – all under the pretext of national security, harassing journalists and whistle-blowers who expose the wrongdoing of governments. Because that is what we are talking about, and it is not some remote exotic dictatorship. This is Europe we are talking about, and massive violations of the laws that we pass.

Politicians cannot even be sure that their communications are not intercepted and listened to by others – maybe by political opponents. We heard here that secret services and governments are even producing dirt to discredit religious leaders. Well, why not opposition politicians? What is stopping them, if they are even listening, not only to the mobile phone of Mrs Merkel and Mr Hollande, but even Ms Feinstein. I mean, how far does it go? How can we be sure that it is not the opposition that has been eavesdropped upon? This is the very fabric of our democracy – the rule of law – that we are talking about, and I find it unbelievable that the EPP still has hesitations here and that the ECR is actually going to vote against. This House will stand up for the rights of European citizens, for democracy and for the rule of law, as it is laid down in the Treaties. That is our job.


  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I have heard from the Council that there have been worrying leaks, media reports and allegations. It is not the leaks, the allegations or the media reports which are worrying but the substance of what is being reported. It is worrying that there are infringements to the rule of law and fundamental rights on a massive scale. It is also worrying that that there has been a scandalous silence for eight months from all the EU governments and the Council. That is the worrying issue here.

I would also say that Edward Snowden is not a criminal who has done something wrong. He is the whistle-blower who has done what is necessary as a whistle-blower. He has again told us that he tried three times to report the wrongdoing which had been committed to the upper levels in the NSA, but nobody listened to him. He then did not put this document on a website – somewhere online – but gave it to responsible journalists to decide for themselves whether it was important for the public to know about it and whether security issues could be overlooked because of it.

We have to take the consequences of that. I am really disappointed that no EU government has stood up to say that he is a witness and that we should get him into the European Union to get the facts on the table, and that we should get the journalists here so that they are able to say what the documents are about, so that we can really scrutinise what has happened. We have to draw our conclusions. Is it really working in favour of the national security of an EU Member State to spy on the companies, the people, the citizens and the institutions of another EU Member State? No, that is not the national security which we mean in the Treaty of the European Union. We have to discuss it here and draw our own conclusions. We have to call on the national parliamentarians to help us with further investigations. That is why we need the report tomorrow. I thank Claude Moraes very much for his great work.



  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, having heard Ms[nbsp ]in ’t Veld’s very strong advice, I think that my Group will be following it and voting against this report. Thank you very much indeed, Sophie, for that. I believe that if the work of this Parliament is to be regarded in a credible manner, then the nature of any inquiry and the recommendations which it makes also have to be credible. Unfortunately, the opportunities to make sensible and valuable recommendations to Member States in areas that fall within the EU’s competence were sadly missed.

Instead, we have seen a report that makes some of the most irresponsible recommendations and threats I have ever seen as a Member of this Parliament. For too long, some factions of the House have felt that the most effective way of dealing with any situation is an irrational show of strength, rather than by wielding a more productive hand of diplomacy. I and my Group will not support any report which calls for the suspension of important international anti-terror agreements and the holding to ransom of vital trade negotiations affecting all our citizens.

It is not just the United States whom you punish and put at risk, but our own people in Europe too. Of course, I fully support the intelligence community being democratically and independently accountable and the highest data protection standards being put in place. But unfortunately, if sensible solutions were what this House was seeking in this report, we have fallen wide of the mark. I therefore, sadly but inevitably, have to urge Members to vote against it and find a better way forward.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))


  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), blue-card question. – My colleague, Mr[nbsp ]Kirkhope, has just described the creation of the enquiry committee as an irrational reaction. I have just said that the US Congress is at this very moment conducting a hearing of John Brennan, who is the Security Chief, at the initiative of Senator Feinstein. Would Mr[nbsp ]Kirkhope describe the initiative of Senator Feinstein as irrational as well?


  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), blue-card answer. – I would not deem to challenge what the United States decides to do in relation to these matters; it is a great comfort to all of us that the United States appears to have in place all kinds of checks and balances in relation to the operation of its intelligence service, as we do in Europe as well. My only problem is that the activities of our inquiry have, if anything, set back the cause of security and protection for our citizens. They have actually given credit to individuals who, even in the most generous terms, might be regarded as people with less than honourable intentions. It has also displayed our attitude towards the Russian authorities – the fact that Moscow is involved in this at a time when Ukraine is under such pressure, which gives all the wrong messages.


  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Edward Snowden hat auf die Fragen des LIBE-Ausschusses geantwortet, dass die Massenausspähung ein Risiko für die persönliche Sicherheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger geworden ist und unsere Art zu leben bedroht – das muss man sich überlegen –, weil Grundrechte ausgehebelt werden, und zwar solche Grundrechte, die in der Summe die Grundlage liberaler Gesellschaften darstellen. Es geht also um die Liberalität demokratischer Gesellschaften und um ihre moralische Integrität.

Die Kernfrage ist im Wesentlichen, wie viel Repression und Überwachung die freie, soziale, pluralistische und sichere Gesellschaft, in der wir leben wollen, verträgt, und wie viel davon auch nötig ist, um sie zu erreichen. Der Wert des vorliegenden Berichts von Claude Moraes besteht darin, sich dieser Problematik wirklich gestellt zu haben und Massenüberwachung als Bruch mit den Grundwerten der EU zu klassifizieren. Etwas, worum sich die Mitgliedstaaten und der Rat herumdrücken bis zum heutigen Tag! Und deshalb gilt ihm der besondere Dank auch unserer Fraktion!

Aber unser besonderer Respekt gilt vor allem auch Edward Snowden und den vielen anderen Whistleblowern, die bis heute trotz der verschiedensten Erkenntnisse, die wir durch sie mittlerweile haben, wie Verräter behandelt werden, rund um den Erdball gejagt werden, alles verloren haben – ich erinnere an die Anhörung mit den Whistleblowern –, sogar das Land, in dem sie aufgewachsen sind, haben sie für sich verloren! Zu einer demokratischen Gesellschaft gehört, die Wahrheit aussprechen und Veränderung verlangen zu dürfen, ohne mit Repression für Leib und Leben rechnen zu müssen. Deshalb ist der Schutz von Whistleblowern so wichtig ebenso wie auch das Asyl für Edward Snowden!


  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - A fő megállapítást, a fejezet első pontját szeretném idézni abból az úgymond Snowden jelentésből, vagy megfigyelésibotrány-jelentésből, amelyet ma tárgyal az Európai Parlament plenáris ülése. A rendelkezésre álló információk és a vizsgálat meggyőző bizonyítékkal szolgálnak olyan kiterjedt, bonyolult és technológiailag magasan fejlett rendszerek létezésére, amelyeket az Egyesül Államok és egyes tagállamok hírszerző szolgálatai alakítottak ki annak érdekében, hogy példátlan nagyságrendben, válogatás nélkül, és nem konkrét gyanúra alapozva összegyűjtsék, tárolják és elemezzék világszerte valamennyi polgár közléseit, köztük tartalmi adatokat, helymeghatározó adatokat és metaadatokat.

Kedves európai polgárok! Ha eddig bárkinek is volt valamiféle illúziója az úgymond nyugati típusú demokráciával kapcsolatban, akkor azt gondolom, hogy ezek után ezt elfelejtheti. Ez egyébként egy 50 oldalas jelentésnek egyetlenegy mondata volt, amit idéztem, és hogyha valakinek illúziója volt azzal kapcsolatban, hogy esetleg az Európai Parlament több mint valamiféle fedő szervezete különböző pénzügyi és gazdasági érdekcsoportoknak, akkor kérem, hogy nézzen körül ebben a teremben. A közel 800 képviselő közül egy ilyen jelentőségű jelentés megvitatásánál ismét körülbelül ötvenen vagyunk. Ez önmagáért beszél, különös tekintettel a május 25-i EP-választásokra. Azt gondoltam, hogy a fősodratú pártok legalább a látszat kedvéért idevezényelnek néhány képviselőt biodíszletként, de még erre sem voltak figyelemmel.


  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, señora Vicepresidenta de la Comisión, señor Presidente en ejercicio del Consejo, Señorías, en primer lugar quisiera agradecer al ponente, señor Moraes, su disposición permanente para el diálogo con los miembros de la Comisión de Asuntos Exteriores que han venido trabajando en esta comisión de investigación. Como decía la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión, estamos ante un problema consistente en restaurar la confianza entre dos socios y aliados, y yo creo que las declaraciones del Presidente Obama del 17 de enero son un paso en esa dirección, que se tiene que traducir en hechos concretos.

En primer lugar, en el ámbito de la protección de datos, la legislación de los Estados Unidos tiene que ser revisada para garantizar el derecho a la privacidad, garantizar la no discriminación de los ciudadanos de la Unión Europea con respecto a los de los Estados Unidos y suscribir las convenciones internacionales.

En el ámbito de la cooperación entre los servicios de inteligencia, esta es una competencia que corresponde a los Estados miembros y quisiera dejar sentado, señor Presidente, un principio muy claro: la cooperación entre los Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea es un elemento fundamental para garantizar la seguridad para ambos socios, pero, evidentemente, esto no quiere decir que estas actividades sean unas actividades desproporcionadas o que no estén sujetas a unos límites, a saber, perseguir el terrorismo o luchar contra la delincuencia organizada; además, tienen que estar sujetas a las respectivas tutelas judiciales y parlamentarias.

Por otro lado, señor Presidente, mi Grupo considera que, como ha dicho la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión, el Safe Harbour no garantiza hoy los derechos de los ciudadanos y de las empresas. Creo que no deberíamos denunciar los Acuerdos SWIFT y PNR y creo que la aproximación al tema del ATCI con los Estados Unidos responde a los planteamientos que presentamos ante nuestros colegas de la Cámara de Representantes y del Senado de los Estados Unidos, así como ante los representantes del Departamento de Estado y de la Casa Blanca, y entiendo que debemos preservarlos, precisamente en vísperas de la cuarta ronda de negociaciones y de la visita del Presidente Obama durante este mes. Pero es evidente que no solo la Unión Europea tiene que poner de su parte, sino que los Estados Unidos también tienen que poner de la suya para que los derechos de los ciudadanos europeos, que son derechos fundamentales, puedan ser debidamente garantizados.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 149, apartado 8, del Reglamento))


  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – I am curious, because you mentioned the Transatlantic Trade Agreement (TTA) responding to the concerns we have here. I have read the mandate, and there is nothing about fundamental rights in it. So I would be really happy to hear from your side what substantive response the TTA negotiations has provided on this. Is the opposite not the truth?

We have been negotiating for three years on the question of whether European citizens get legal redress under US privacy laws because, until now, we have had no possibility of getting judicial redress, and yet we are sitting here and doing nothing. I really think the two things should be linked to each other. Do you not agree?


  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Uno de los siete sabios de Grecia decía que toda pregunta incorpora, como mínimo, el cincuenta por ciento de la respuesta. Yo creo que ese cincuenta por ciento de la respuesta lo ha planteado usted, señor Albrecht, en su pregunta.

Lo que quería decir simplemente en mi intervención es que este Acuerdo entre la Unión Europea y los Estados Unidos es vital para la situación de nuestro continente, para nuestro progreso futuro y para el resto del conjunto de los problemas que se plantean a escala planetaria. Yo he dicho que lo que hay que hacer es crear las condiciones para que, cuando ese Acuerdo se concluya y se someta a este Parlamento, este Parlamento pueda ratificarlo.

Y es evidente que nuestro proyecto político es un proyecto fundado en valores, en principios fundamentales y no solo en cifras y en datos económicos. Creo que a buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan.


  Dimitrios Droutsas (S&D). - Mr President, may I join in first of all in thanking the rapporteur, Claude Moraes, and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent work and in expressing my deep disappointment about the fact that the European Union, the Council and the Member States have not reacted at all on the NSA revelations. As a European citizen, I feel offended and abandoned. There is maybe one positive aspect regarding the NSA scandal: it was a real wake-up call regarding data protection reform in the European Union.

I will never forget the words that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, used during the German electoral campaign a few months ago. She said, when she was asked about the NSA scandal, that the only answer to the NSA scandal is more data protection at European level and fast, as soon as possible. I hope that certain political groups in the House will follow the words of their most prominent representative.


  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Mr President, Mr Kirkhope’s stance against this report shows why the coalition government in London has been unable to do what President Obama has done – to instigate a review of the surveillance practices, legal framework and oversight of the intelligence agencies, and in particular GCHQ. I am therefore delighted that at least the smaller party in the coalition, the Liberal Democrats, is acting.

My party leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has instigated an independent review. I would direct you to the website of the prestigious Royal United Services Institute for his speech and the terms of reference. My party also passed a resolution for a digital bill of rights at our congress last weekend, including a demand to end the bulk collection of data. So, even if we cannot get the whole government acting, we are advancing a review from the Deputy Prime Minister.

I support this report; I just have a few quibbles about it. I am not terribly fond of the goal of EU Independence in the IT sector, which is called for in paragraphs 97 and 131. I absolutely want investment to enhance the capacity of Europe in IT, but in a global world, what I want is for us to get a new a global deal on protecting our privacy. I think it reeks too much of protectionism and autarchy, and I am also not sure what a European cloud achieves. Ditto the same remarks: I want European competence and for us to keep data in Europe if possible, but I am a bit unsure about the European cloud.


  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the work done on this. We have heard mentioned today the checks and balances which are supposed to be there in terms of oversight of security services. It has become clear yet again, for those of us who remember ECHELON, that these are not operational or are being ignored, or that they certainly need changing, to move away from deference to security agencies and the light-touch approach.

We have laws in place to limit general phishing expeditions, and we know that there are real questions about the efficiency of mass information. But the relevant checks and balances are clearly not operating, and we have governments making new powers out of vague laws. This working-round: what is on-shore, what is offshore, what is foreign? ‘If I hand you this bit of information and you hand me that about our respective citizens, well, we are legally OK, but we are not actually within the spirit of the law.

Another question that is raised here is the inclusion of private companies acting within the state security services. What is the protection for the workers, and what are the rules under which they operate? Finally, I really think that if we are simply looking at a nice diplomatic, cosy chat with the United States as a result of this, it makes you wonder what has to happen before we actually take some definitive action.


  Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), blue-card question to Sarah Ludford. – Baroness Ludford, I was a bit surprised to hear you say that you were opposing the European cloud. Before I became a politician I was a computer programmer, so I am wondering, could you please explain to me, if we continue to rely on US infrastructure and if the data is stored and processed in the US, how will you technically be able to prevent the NSA from simply reading whatever they want with no effort at all?


  Sarah Ludford (ALDE), blue-card answer to Christian Engström. – What I want to achieve by working with our colleagues in the United States – with Congress, civil society, ACLU and all the other people who are batting for reform in the US – is for us to pursue reform in Europe and reform in the US. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that data in a European cloud is safe from interception and surveillance. A lot has been said about GCHQ in the UK, but I am afraid some of the continental security services are just as adept as the British ones. Please do not complacently assume that they are not.

So I do not think that we can assume that data is safe in any particular location. We have to work in Europe, and in the United States and globally, to increase the safeguards. I think we should allow businesses and citizens to put their data where they choose to and not say that it must be located in one place, as long as we can work to improve the safeguards, working transatlantically in particular.


  Mario Borghezio (NI). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, c'è molta ipocrisia da parte di questa classe politica europea e anche internazionale, che sembra non rendersi conto che è assolutamente funzionale al sistema del nuovo ordine mondiale. Un controllo di massa dell'opinione, dei cittadini, dei flussi dei dati riguardanti la vita privata ma anche la vita economica, finanziaria. Vogliono sapere evidentemente tutto, non si accontentano di decidere nel chiuso dei vari Club Bilderberg affollati di commissari europei, i destini dei nostri popoli. Vogliono anche sapere tutto di noi e noi ci stupiamo ancora, ma è direi quasi inevitabile orwelliamente parlando.

Quello che invece emerge da questa realtà, dovremmo dire grazie a questa vicenda, è l'inadeguatezza del sistema giuridico europeo. Qui si sono fatte tante parole, tanti bla bla inutili, ne abbiamo avuto stamattina uno lunghissimo sui diritti delle donne e poi nella realtà si scopre che questa Unione europea non aveva gli strumenti fondamentali per difendere la privacy dei suoi cittadini: è il trionfo dell'incapacità giuridica, dei fondamenti giuridici di questa Unione europea. O no? Mi sembra un dato incontrovertibile. Questa reazione fa emergere appunto questa situazione di debolezza di questo diritto europeo che è impegnato nell'indagare sulla lunghezza ...

(Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratore)


  Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Ratspräsidentschaft! An den Anfang möchte ich ein Dankeschön an Claude Moraes stellen, weil er sich nicht nur mit den öffentlichkeitswirksamen Fragen befasst hat, sondern auch sehr viele sachliche Fragen in den Bericht aufgenommen hat, wie beispielsweise Fragen zur IT-Sicherheit in der Europäischen Union.

Wir müssen in der Europäischen Union, liebe Kommission, dringend eigene Kapazitäten technischer Art aufbauen, durch die wir unabhängig werden von Firmen wie Huawei oder auch von Firmen wie Cisco, von amerikanischen, von asiatischen Firmen, und müssen auch eigene Produktionsstränge in den wichtigen sensiblen technischen Feldern aufbauen.

Des Weiteren ist es wichtig, dass wir auch entsprechend Innovation und Forschung in diesem Sektor mitfinanzieren und unsere eigenen Firmen mitfinanzieren, so wie dies auf den anderen Kontinenten ebenfalls geschieht. Es ist aber auch wichtig, gegen IT-Kriminalität vorzugehen und festzustellen, dass – auch wenn ich dich, lieber Jan-Philip, sehr schätze – trotzdem der Schwerpunkt der negativen IT-Eingriffe immer noch durch Kriminelle und nicht durch die NSA stattfindet. Mir ist die Diskussion hier ein bisschen zu sehr fokussiert alleine auf die NSA. Ich würde sie stärker darauf fokussieren, dass wir zum Teil staatliche Zugriffe aus China, aus asiatischen Staaten, aus osteuropäischen Staaten, von Russland haben.

Wir müssen uns selbst stärker absichern, um die Daten unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu schützen, und wir müssen auch den Datenkraken von Google bis Facebook deutlich Widerstand bieten, wenn sie mit unseren Daten oder mit den Daten der Bürgerinnen und Bürger nicht so umgehen, wie wir uns das vorstellen.


  Birgit Sippel (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Mit unserem NSA-Bericht senden wir ein klares Signal. Die anlasslose Massenüberwachung unschuldiger Bürgerinnen und Bürger ist nicht hinnehmbar. Geheimdienste sollen den demokratischen Rechtsstaat schützen, nicht ihn abschaffen. Deshalb brauchen wir neben einem starken Datenschutz klare Regeln für Geheimdienste und für deren Kontrolle in unseren Mitgliedstaaten und in den USA. Und um uns dort Gehör zu verschaffen, können wir das TFTP-Abkommen und die Safe-Harbour-Regeln auf Eis legen, beide ohnehin umstritten.

Grundrechte dürfen nicht auf dem Altar wirtschaftlicher Heilsversprechungen geopfert werden! Und deshalb werden wir auch einem Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA ohne starke Grundrechtegarantie nicht zustimmen. Dieses Parlament hat die politische Macht, europäische Werte und Grundrechte zu stärken, anstatt sie weiter auszuhöhlen. Diese Macht müssen wir aber auch nutzen für den NSA-Bericht und für den Datenschutz, denn, Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wir sind Interessenvertreter von 500[nbsp ]Millionen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, nicht von einigen privaten oder staatlichen Lobbyisten!


  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Szeretném megkérdezni, hogy hogyan egyeztethető össze az elnök szerepkörével, ami az előbb történt, hogy Borghezio úr rendkívül találó felszólalására a Bilderberg csoport szerepével kapcsolatban Ön elnöki minőségében azt mondta a tőle kérdezni akaró, kék kártyával próbálkozó képviselőtársunknak, hogy gondolja, hogy érdemes arra, hogy kérdezzen? Hogy tudja ezt Ön az elnöki szerepkörével összeegyeztetni, illetve kérdezem, hogy ez benne lesz-e ennek az ülésnek a jegyzőkönyvében? Köszönöm szépen. Annál is inkább, mert ugye a kék kártyát visszavonta utána képviselőtársunk.


  Nadja Hirsch (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Zuerst mein Dank an den Berichterstatter – vielen Dank! Ich muss allerdings sagen, wir sollten uns die Frage stellen: Wenn die europäischen Regierungen glaubhaft mit Drittstaaten, mit den USA verhandeln wollen, wie wollen sie das denn machen, wenn sie auf der einen Seite eine Datenschutzgrundverordnung blockieren, wenn eine deutsche Bundesregierung, eine CSU, CDU, SPD, die anlasslose Vorratsdatenspeicherung selbst einführen will? Da ist es durchaus sehr schwer, sich glaubwürdig argumentativ gegenüber Russland, China oder auch den USA zu platzieren.

Lassen Sie uns deshalb wirklich handeln! Ich finde es ja schon einmal gut, dass wir im Europäischen Parlament seit Januar endlich auf Druck der Abgeordneten selbst verschlüsseln können, das wurde höchste Zeit! Ich glaube aber auch, dass wir dringend eine Unabhängigkeit von US-Playern brauchen. Wir müssen stärker in eine europäische Server-Dezentralisierung gehen. Kein europäisches Internet – das funktioniert nicht und das wollen wir nicht. Aber wir haben viele intelligente, innovative Start-ups, die gerade hier einen Unterschied machen können.


  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). - Acho que a coisa mais importante que se disse neste debate, desde que ele começou há oito meses, foi dita pelo próprio Edward Snowden, que disse: Os governos não podem fazer aquilo que estão a fazer nesta escala com acesso a este nível de informação e com os meios que têm, sem que a democracia tome a sua decisão, sem que os representantes dos cidadãos falem.

Ora bem, os representantes dos cidadãos estão aqui e falam, e estamos orgulhosos porque o Parlamento Europeu foi o único Parlamento que levou até ao fim uma investigação deste tipo mas, por outro lado, temos a sensação de que não nos ouvem. E porque é que não nos ouvem? Porque estão o tempo todo a ouvir o que dizemos nos nossos telefonemas, nos nossos emails, nas nossas chamadas de skype, nas nossas mensagens de facebook, menos naquilo que dizemos nos plenários dos nossos parlamentos.

Faço, portanto, um apelo à Comissão Europeia: nós sabemos quando é que os Estados Unidos nos começam a ouvir, é quando fechamos a torneira da informação. Há um acordo pelo menos, o Acordo Swift, que a Comissão Europeia pode denunciar a qualquer momento, que nós sabemos que está a ser utilizado para lá do seu mandato.

Sra. Vice-Presidente, faço um apelo: feche a torneira do Acordo Swift para que, em vez de ouvirem o que dizemos através das nossas transferências bancárias, os Estados Unidos finalmente oiçam aquilo que dizemos dentro desta sala.


  Hubert Pirker (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Die wesentliche Frage, die wir uns stellen müssen, ist ja eigentlich die: Welche Konsequenzen ziehen wir aus der massenhaften Datenabsaugung, aus der unkontrollierten Überwachung, die stattgefunden haben? Ich bin jedenfalls gegen diese Phantomdebatten, die hier teilweise geführt werden, wenn man diskutiert, ob Snowden Asyl bekommen soll oder nicht. Und ich bin auch dagegen, dass man einfach versucht, erfolgreich eingesetzte Instrumente wie SWIFT oder PNR jetzt wieder abzuschaffen. Das sind Instrumente, die wir im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus brauchen.

Wofür ich bin, das sind konkrete Maßnahmen – konkrete Maßnahmen, die Europas Bürger, Europas Industrie, Wissenschaft und Forschung vor Spionage und vor dem Datenmissbrauch schützen. Daher zwei ganz konkrete Vorschläge, wo ich bitte, sie zu unterstützen – insbesondere diejenigen, die links im Hause sitzen. Das Erste ist, dass wir in die strategische Stärkung der europäischen IT-Infrastruktur investieren sollten. Hier gibt es, glaube ich, eine Übereinstimmung.

Und das Zweite sind Investitionen in den Aufbau einer europäischen Spionageabwehr. Das heißt in die Kooperation der Dienste unter den Staaten, um Europas Forschung, Europas Industrie vor den Zugriffen von Spionagediensten aus Drittstaaten – ob China, Russland, USA – zu schützen. Das ist der Schutz des Wirtschaftsstandorts Europa, der Schutz der Arbeitsplätze, die wir hier brauchen. Das sollten wir machen. Und ich appelliere an alle hier, die im Hause links sitzen, diesen Änderungsvorschlag der EVP – das ist der Änderungsvorschlag[nbsp ]8 zur Ziffer[nbsp ]124 – zu unterstützen und ihn mitzutragen. Ich möchte auch an den Rat appellieren, hier endlich Schritte zu setzen, um diese Spionageabwehr aufzubauen!


  Ana Gomes (S&D). - A relação da União Europeia com os Estados Unidos ficou abalada com as revelações de Edward Snowden sobre as atividades de espionagem conduzidas pela NSA. Os Estados Unidos espiaram e espiam, a torto e a direito, comunicações de cidadãos europeus, Chefes de Estado, agentes económicos, escudando-se no imperativo de segurança interna plasmado no Patriot Act e a legislação antiterrorista adotada após o 11 de setembro que é, em boa parte, incompatível com as obrigações dos Estados Unidos no quadro do direito internacional e dos direitos humanos, em particular. E, de facto, assim desqualificam o combate ao terrorismo.

Os americanos argumentam, e lamentavelmente com razão, que estes dados foram e são fornecidos pelos serviços de informação europeus, que continuam a estar, na maior parte dos países, ao abrigo de real controlo democrático. Esperemos que este escândalo ao menos sirva para nos obrigar a rever os procedimentos e a determinar um escrutínio democrático sobre os serviços de informação em todos os Estados-Membros.

É preciso começar por investigar as atividades e a tecnologia que é utilizada para assegurar a supervisão eficaz, garantindo respeito pelos princípios da proporcionalidade e pela proteção da privacidade dos europeus.

As revelações de Snowden e as reações que desencadearam, incluindo o importante Relatório Moraes (aqui cumprimento o nosso colega que o levou por diante), devem levar-nos a uma cooperação diferente com os Estados Unidos. Sem dúvida, a Internet abre novas portas mas também novos riscos e, portanto, tem que haver um repensar das regras de importação de dados no sentido de se equacionar os dilemas entre segurança e privacidade das comunicações.

No quadro da negociação do Acordo Transatlântico do Investimento e de Comércio, esta questão tem que ser levada em conta - a proteção de dados dos nossos cidadãos - e é bom que isso seja feito antes do acordo-tipo propriamente. Temos que garantir que os cidadãos europeus podem recorrer, administrativa e judicialmente, nos Estados Unidos da América quando a sua privacidade for violada e, portanto, reclamar também direitos de reparação. Temos também de garantir reciprocidade no Passenger Name Record, assegurar que a transferência de dados dos passageiros voando para a Europa também se faz e é tempo de rever o Safe Harbour, que está desatualizado, e rever o Swift Agreement, garantindo a reciprocidade e o redress para os cidadãos europeus.

É um outro aspeto, que é vital neste relatório, que é o de garantir a proteção dos whistleblowers, como é o caso de Edward Snowden. Sem eles, estaríamos hoje mais indefesos e mais ignorantes face ao que se passa em matéria de violação da privacidade.


  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident, Vertreterinnen von Kommission und Rat, meine Damen und Herren Kolleginnen und Kollegen hier im Parlament! Herr Kollege Pirker von der ÖVP, Sie haben zuerst gemeint, die Debatte um das Asyl für Edward Snowden ist eine Phantomdebatte. Herr Kollege, Edward Snowden ist kein Phantom! Edward Snowden ist ein Mann, der sehr viel Mut gezeigt hat, der sein Leben riskiert hat, der nicht mehr dort leben kann, wo er gelebt hat, der riskiert hat und den Mut gehabt hat, diese skandalöse Massenüberwachung, die alle europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger betrifft, ja, auch Regierungsmitglieder, auch Unternehmen, das alles ans Tageslicht zu bringen. Dafür büßt er jetzt, dafür sitzt er jetzt in Russland und weiß nicht, wie sein Leben weitergeht.

Und daher ist es sehr wohl legitim, dass wir hier morgen den Antrag stellen. Und ich hoffe, die Abgeordneten hier in diesem Haus, vor allem von jenen Fraktionen, die grundsätzlich diese Haltung der Kritik unterstützen, werden morgen zustimmen, dass wir die Mitgliedstaaten auffordern, Herrn Edward Snowden Asyl zu geben, um ihm Schutz zu geben, Schutz auch seiner Privatsphäre, denn auch er hat eine Privatsphäre und die sollte auch geschützt werden – für das, was er getan hat, um diesen Skandal ans Tageslicht zu bringen.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  Hubert Pirker (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ich habe natürlich ganz bewusst gesagt, dass es eine Phantomdebatte ist. Meine Frage ist, ob Frau Lunacek denn nicht Bescheid weiß, wer über das Asyl eines Menschen befindet. Es ist nicht die Politik. In keinem der Mitgliedstaaten ist es die Politik. Es ist überall eine entsprechende Asylbehörde, die nach objektiven Gesichtspunkten überprüft, ob jemand Asyl bekommt oder nicht. Wir haben hier nicht die Kompetenz – und das haben auch andere Regierungen nicht –, wie es von Ihnen gefordert wird, darüber zu entscheiden, ob Asyl ausgesprochen wird oder nicht. Das ist einzig und allein die Sache von Behörden, zu überprüfen, ob Asyl gewährt wird oder nicht. Daher ist es und bleibt es eine Asyldebatte. Und wir sollen über andere konkrete Konsequenzen zum Schutz der Bürger Europas nachdenken, zum Schutz der europäischen Industrie.


  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege Pirker, Sie wissen wohl auch, dass sehr wohl auch Regierungen in Ausnahmefällen Asyl gewähren können. Das ist so! Und das andere: Wenn schon nicht Asyl, dann gäbe es ja auch die Möglichkeit, Herrn Snowden als Whistleblower, der er ja wohl ist, Zeugenschutz zu geben und ihn in ein EU-Land zu holen. Das ist die andere Möglichkeit. Also wo der politische Wille ist, da ist wohl auch ein Weg! Und das ist, wie gesagt, keine Phantomdebatte! Es geht auch um Herrn Snowden und nicht nur um unser aller Privatsphäre. Es geht um die Privatsphäre von allen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern!


  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), blue-card question to Hubert Pirker. – I think the NSA is now resorting to other means: my microphone has broken. This is sabotage 3.0. Anyway I will hold it.

I was just intrigued by Mr Pirkerʼs remarks about the authorities deciding on asylum. Are we not looking at a different situation here? Apart from a possible asylum request, the real issue here is if governments decide to extradite Mr Snowden to the United States. I know that the government of the Netherlands has said that we have to extradite him as soon as he sets foot on Dutch soil, but that is not actually true, because very often states decide not to extradite.

We in Europe are still waiting for the extradition of 25 CIA agents who have been convicted in Italy and who should have been extradited by the US. But the US does not extradite. So is that not the real issue?


  Hubert Pirker (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ an Sophia in 't Veld. – Die Frau Kollegin weiß sicher, dass nicht nur die Niederlande, sondern sämtliche EU-Staaten Auslieferungsabkommen mit den USA haben. Und Herr Snowden hat genau gewusst – er ist ein sehr informierter Mann –, dass alle Staaten diese Auslieferungsabkommen haben. Daher hat er sich nicht in einen der europäischen Staaten begeben, sondern nach Russland. Er hätte auch nach China gehen können oder wohin immer.

Wenn er sich hierher begibt, dann machen die Staaten das, was einem Abkommen gerecht ist: Es wird ein Gericht überprüfen, ob eine Auslieferung stattfindet oder nicht. Und gehen Sie davon aus, dass hier in der Regel kein Grund vorliegen wird, Snowden nicht an die USA auszuliefern. Auch das wusste Herr Snowden, deshalb ist er nicht hier hergekommen. Ich würde Herrn Snowden nicht empfehlen, in die Europäische Union zu kommen, weil dann diese Auslieferungsabkommen wirksam werden würden.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel[nbsp ]149 Absatz[nbsp ]8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


  Krisztina Morvai (NI), blue-card question. – May I ask you why you are saying no? I mean, is this your concept of democracy, that your political enemies are not allowed to use the same kind of procedural rules as you do? If I may, I would like to tell you that, under the case law arising from the European Convention of Human Rights and several other international obligations of European Member States, people should not be extradited to countries where they might face either the death penalty or torture. Knowing the United States’ practice, I think Edward Snowden would face both options: the death penalty and, being aware of Guantanamo and all the rest, there is a good chance that he could face torture. So would that not be in the picture when we talk about the extradition of Snowden?


  Hubert Pirker (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ja, kurze Antwort: Wenn die Gerichte überprüfen und bei dieser Überprüfung feststellen, dass Folter oder Todesstrafe drohen, dann werden diese Gerichte so handeln, dass diese Person nicht ausgeliefert wird. Auch das ist der Auftrag an diese Gerichte.


  Wim van de Camp (PPE). - Mr President, I understand that you are in a hurry. I will carry on in Dutch.

Meneer de Voorzitter, wat ons de afgelopen maanden is overkomen met de praktijken van de NSA is absoluut onaanvaardbaar. Het afluisteren van de handy van mevrouw Merkel, dat hier vanmiddag al is beschreven, is daarvan wel het meest verschrikkelijke voorbeeld.

En als Atlanticus ben ik dan ook teleurgesteld in de VS. Ik heb altijd veel vertrouwen in de VS gehad, maar met de NSA-afluisterpraktijken is men absoluut te ver gegaan. Ik begrijp heel goed dat in deze tijden voor de terrorismebestrijding bepaalde technieken vereist zijn om mensen af te luisteren, maar niet in deze mate. Het oordeel in het verslag-Moraes kan op dit punt dan ook niet hard genoeg zijn. Wij kunnen dit niet van de NSA accepteren.

Maar, Voorzitter, – en dat zeg ik ook tegen mijn collega's van de Groenen – de Verenigde Staten zijn niet melaats. Om nu alle verdragen en onderhandelingen die wij met de Verenigde Staten voeren, op dit moment op te schorten, zoals het vrijhandelsverdrag en het SWIFT-verdrag, lijkt me niet verstandig. Temeer daar wij op dit moment de crisis in de Oekraïne proberen op te lossen. Dat kan Europa alleen maar in samenwerking met de VS. Dus laten wij nu niet alle dossiers met elkaar gaan vermengen.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Die Debatte hier im Haus ist sehr wichtig, und vielleicht ist sie auch historisch. Wir würden sie nicht führen, hätte es nicht Edward Snowden gegeben, der seine persönliche Existenz aufs Spiel gesetzt hat, um die Welt davon in Kenntnis zu setzen, dass ein zentrales Grundrecht, das Recht auf Privatsphäre, systematisch und auf unerträgliche Weise massiv von unserem wichtigsten Verbündeten und von einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten verletzt wird. Es ist gut, dass wir uns damit befassen und unsere Augen nicht vor der Realität verschließen.

Im Gegensatz zu den meisten nationalen Parlamenten führen wir diese Debatte. Wir führen sie nicht nur, weil wir die falschen Entwicklungen aufarbeiten müssen, wir führen sie aus Verantwortungsbewusstsein gegenüber der künftigen Generation. Ich will nicht, dass mein Enkel einmal ohne Privatsphäre aufwächst. Mir ist egal, ob diese von Staats wegen oder aus kommerziellen Interessen verletzt wird.

Noch haben wir die Möglichkeit, korrigierend einzugreifen. Der NSA-Bericht und das von diesem Haus mit überwältigender Mehrheit beschlossene Datenschutzpaket beweisen unsere Kompetenz. Es ist höchste Zeit, dass die Mitgliedstaaten diese Chance erkennen und ihre Blockadepolitik aufgeben. Auch die Frage des Asyls von Edward Snowden gehört in diesen Zusammenhang. Er hat selber gestern in seinem Brief bekundet, dass er bei mehreren Mitgliedstaaten um Asyl angesucht hat.

Ich darf abschließend aber noch Claude Moraes für seine hervorragende Arbeit danken, ebenso den Schattenberichterstattern. Mit diesem Bericht zeigt das Europäische Parlament, auf welcher Seite es steht, nämlich auf der Seite der Bürgerinnen und Bürger und ihrer Grundrechte.


  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, cela fait plus de huit mois que le dissident Edward Snowden nous a révélé le plus grand scandale d'espionnage jamais vu dans des démocraties. Et qu'observe-t-on? Certes, le président[nbsp ]Obama a souhaité rétablir la confiance. La belle affaire! Nous avons eu des déclarations d'indignation de pure façade de bon nombre de nos dirigeants européens et la seule action qu'ils ont entreprise, comme la France, a été d'interdire le survol de l'avion d'Evo[nbsp ]Morales parce qu'on imaginait qu'il pouvait aller sauver Edward[nbsp ]Snowden. Cela n'est pas à la hauteur de l'enjeu. Ce sont des millions de citoyens européens qui ont été espionnés. Ce sont nos institutions qui ont été espionnées. Ce sont nos dirigeants qui ont été espionnés.

Dans quinze jours, le président Obama viendra en Europe. Le seul geste politique d'envergure pour montrer notre indignation et faire en sorte que cet espionnage cesse, c'est de stopper les négociations sur l'accord de libre-échange. C'est le seul geste politique qu'entendront et les dirigeants américains et les dirigeants européens. C'est le message que le Parlement européen doit envoyer dès demain à travers son vote.



  Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE). - Señor Presidente, mis primeras palabras hoy no pueden ser más que de recuerdo para todas las víctimas del terrorismo y, en especial, para las 192 personas que perdieron la vida en los atentados de los trenes de Madrid.

Han pasado diez años, pero el recuerdo y el dolor siguen intactos, así como nuestra rabia contra quienes decidieron castigar no solo a cientos de familias, sino a toda la sociedad española, que sigue llorando en silencio como aquel 11 de marzo de 2004. Y en este Día Europeo de las Víctimas del Terrorismo quiero prometer a quienes como yo vieron morir a los suyos a manos del terrorismo que, desde este Parlamento, combatiremos siempre a quienes no respetan la vida, porque somos libres y, además, no tenemos miedo.

Y es defendiendo la seguridad de nuestros ciudadanos contra la barbarie terrorista cuando tenemos la obligación de buscar un equilibrio que no viole el derecho a la privacidad y, para ello, debemos marcar desde la ley unas líneas claras que no se puedan traspasar, pero pedir la disolución del Programa de Seguimiento de la Financiación del Terrorismo, que permite a la Unión Europea compartir datos con los Estados Unidos, es un profundo error, ya que gracias a esta colaboración se han evitado atentados.

Hay que apoyar la protección de los datos de los ciudadanos, pero sin poner en riesgo su seguridad. Los terroristas no tienen que frotarse las manos porque nosotros rompamos ese acuerdo que ha dado buenos frutos. Privacidad, sí; seguridad, también. Y todo en colaboración con los Estados Unidos y, además, sin olvidar nunca el marco de los derechos humanos.


  Carlos Coelho (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, Senhora Vice-Presidente da Comissão, Senhor Presidente em exercício, Caras e Caros Colegas, quero começar por cumprimentar Claude Moraes pelo trabalho competente e empenhado que fez em tão pouco tempo.

Concordo com todos aqueles que sublinharam hoje que o Parlamento Europeu fez ouvir a sua voz quando o Conselho guarda um cúmplice e embaraçado silêncio. Já vivemos o mesmo aquando do Relatório Echelon. Quando somos confrontados com abusos como os que investigámos, perderíamos a credibilidade se fingíssemos que nada aconteceu.

No final desta investigação, podemos dizer três coisas de forma clara: a primeira é que há fortes e graves razões para sublinhar que os nossos cidadãos têm de ser protegidos e a sua privacidade respeitada. A segunda é que quando se fazem acordos entre Estados de transferência de dados, devem respeitar-se sob pena de serem nulos e poderem ser denunciados. E a terceira é de que há a ideia crescente de que, nas democracias ocidentais, as atividades dos serviços secretos estão a ficar sem controlo e um Estado policial pode começar a emergir.

Mais controlo judicial e melhor controlo parlamentar são inadiáveis.


  Ivo Belet (PPE). - Voorzitters en commissaris, beste collega's, wat kunnen we nog toevoegen aan het eind van dit debat? Het beste is om terug te gaan naar de essentie, naar de bevindingen van het verslag-Moraes - een uitstekend verslag.

Het is duidelijk dat de bescherming van de privacy van de Europese burgers vandaag helemaal zoek is. De tegenstelling, of beter gezegd de balans tussen die twee fundamentele rechten, aan de ene kant de veiligheid van de burgers en aan de andere kant de privacy, die is helemaal doorgeschoten naar de verkeerde kant. Na de terreuraanslagen in de Verenigde Staten is de slinger naar de verkeerde kant doorgeslagen.

Natuurlijk kunnen we dat zo niet laten. Inlichtingendiensten, met name in de Verenigde Staten, zijn tegenwoordig door een systeem van massale observatie effectief op de hoogte van het kleinste detail van het leven van alle burgers, alle burgers in dit Huis inbegrepen. En grote Amerikaanse internetbedrijven, ook in Europa, doen hier gretig aan mee. Dat is fundamenteel in strijd – dat is hier al vaak gezegd vanavond – met het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie.

Daarom is het tijd voor actie. Daarom is het tijd, beste collega's, om de Safe Harbour Agreement op te schorten en duidelijk te maken dat wij verlangen van de Europese Commissie en ook van u, commissaris, dat u in deze de meerderheid van het Parlement volgt. Als we vandaag de klok niet stilzetten, en als we vandaag deze fundamentele privacykwestie niet bij de wortel aanpakken, zullen wij binnenkort inderdaad wakker worden in dat landschap, in "1984" van George Orwell. Dan zal dat werkelijkheid worden. Als onze Amerikaanse vrienden dat willen dan is dat hun volste recht, maar het is niet de richting waarin wij met Europa willen.


  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Pred niekoľkými mesiacmi vypukla kauza, po ktorej sa Amerika stala synonymom tajných odpočúvaní, špehovaní a nekalých praktík voči vlastným spojencom. Tento incident tiež spustil debatu o bezpečnosti a[nbsp ]ochrane dát v Európe. Mimochodom, bol na ňu najvyšší čas.

Debata má niekoľko vážnych aspektov. Ponúkajú sa dva princípy, ktorými by sme sa podľa mňa mali riadiť. Po prvé, zber osobných údajov a nakladanie s[nbsp ]nimi musí poznať zdravú mieru, nemôže byť neobmedzené a nemôže byť bez pravidiel. Po druhé, malo by platiť Dôveruj, ale preveruj, čo by sa malo vzťahovať tiež voči našim partnerom.

Nemyslím si však, že dohody s USA, a predovšetkým rokovania o TTIP by mali byť spochybňované a v tomto prípade používané inštrumentálne. Nech máme akýkoľvek názor na partnerstvo s USA a akýkoľvek pohľad na dôležitosť zdieľania dát, tieto otázky treba oddeliť.

Sústreďme sa preto na to, aby sme čo najrýchlejšie identifikovali vlastné problémy a dokázali na ne adekvátne reagovať. Teraz máme príležitosť začať diskusiu a pripraviť modernú legislatívu vrátane digitálneho habeas corpus, ktorá zaručí dodatočnú mieru bezpečnosti pri narábaní s dátami a bude garantovať zvýšenú ochranu osobných údajov pre našich občanov.


  Andrej Plenković (PPE). - Gospodine potpredsjedniče, podržavam izvješće zastupnika Claudea Moraesa o programu nadzora Agencije za nacionalnu sigurnost iz Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i smatram da su naši kolege iz Odbora LIBE pokazali veliki aktivizam i vrlo detaljno proučavanje ovog fenomena s kojim smo se suočili od lipnja prošle godine nakon informacija o masovnom neselektivnom nadzoru protiv kojega sam, naravno, i protiv kojega smo vjerujem svi mi, pogotovo kada se on događa među partnerima u okviru Sjevernoatlantskog saveza, kada se on događa između SAD-a i EU-a koji dijele čitav niz načela, ugovora pa i ja bih rekao zajedničkih napora da uredimo globalne odnose na razini koja je i konstruktivna, ali i usmjerena na borbu protiv terorizma. Također smatram da moramo voditi računa o tome da je za nas u Europskoj uniji pravo na privatnost i zaštita podataka jedna od temeljnih vrijednosti te da upravo smjernice koje smo vidjeli u ovome izvješću, a njih ima nekoliko, posebice glede europskoga digitalnog habeasa corpusa, trebaju biti nit vodilja u budućim aktivnostima i posebno sam zato sretan što smo razgovarali malo prije o paketu za zaštitu podataka, što smatram da moramo nastaviti pregovore o krovnom sporazumu između Europske unije i SAD-a, a što je najvažnije, moramo razviti europsku strategiju za neovisnost naših informacijskih tehnologija, posebice interneta. Činjenica da su svi pretraživači praktički američki dovoljno govori o tome da Europska unija u tom smislu mora napraviti važan iskorak.


Catch-the-eye procedure


  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, olen esittänyt kantani EU:n kansalaisten tietoturvan vahvistamiseen jo aikaisemmin ja pidän edelleen tärkeänä sitä, että viemme asiaa eteenpäin. Tietoturva koskettaa meistä jokaista eikä väärinkäytöksiä tule katsoa läpi sormien.

Yhdysvaltojen NSA:n valvontaohjelmasta on käyty paljon keskustelua viimeisen puolen vuoden aikana. EU:n on pysyttävä tiukkana suojellakseen kansalaistensa henkilökohtaisia tietoja, etteivät ne joudu vakoilun kohteeksi. Vaikka terrorismin torjunta on kiistatta tärkeää, se ei saa oikeuttaa Yhdysvaltoja harjoittamaan salaisia ja laittomia valvontaohjelmia.

Meidän on Euroopan sisällä kehitettävä tarvittavat keinot tietoturvan varmistamiseksi. Näitä ovat esimerkiksi pilvipalveluiden ja tietoteknisten ratkaisujen jatkuva kehittäminen.

Kauppasopimukselle annan täyden tukeni, mutta mielestäni tietosuojaan liittyvät kysymykset on pidettävä erillään EU:n ja Yhdysvaltojen kauppaneuvotteluista. Niistä tulee neuvotella Yhdysvaltojen kanssa erikseen ja toivonkin, ettei kysymys tietoturvan parantamisesta vaikeuta neuvotteluja. Aiheesta on jo saatu aikaan hyvää keskustelua ja toivon, että saamme pian yhtenevän kannan asiaan.


  Marc Tarabella (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie de m'avoir dissuadé d'utiliser mon carton bleu pour poser une question à M. Borghezio. En effet, son intervention insignifiante ne méritait que le silence et l'indifférence.

Je tiens donc à souligner que le Parlement européen a mené un vrai travail de fond pour découvrir la vérité sur le scandale Prism. Nous ne pouvons que condamner la collecte à grande échelle, systématique et aveugle, des données à caractère personnel, quelquefois à caractère intime, de personnes innocentes. C'est totalement inacceptable.

Nous n'avons pas la même conception que les États-Unis sur ce qu'est une donnée personnelle: pour eux, c'est une donnée marketing monnayable et, pour nous, cela touche à la vie privée, à nos libertés individuelles. Cela ne doit pas nous empêcher de travailler avec eux, mais sous certaines conditions. Nous ne devons accepter l'accord de libre-échange entre l'Union européenne et les États-Unis que si la question du transfert de données en est explicitement exclue.

Enfin, tant que la confiance n'est pas rétablie, il faut suspendre l'accord sur la sphère de sécurité, qui permet aux entreprises américaines de transférer les données personnelles des citoyens européens.

Voter ce rapport, en félicitant Claude Moraes, le rapporteur, c'est voter pour le respect de la liberté individuelle que méritent tous nos citoyens.


  Christian Engström (Verts/ALE). - Herr talman! En av de saker som vi kommer att rösta om imorgon är huruvida vi ska uppmana Europas regeringar att erbjuda Edward Snowden skydd och asyl. Jag ber alla kollegor att stödja det kravet.

Edward Snowden är en hjälte. Han har avslöjat ett gigantiskt spionsystem som går bortom vad George Orwell kunde föreställa sig i sina värsta mardrömmar. Det har aldrig någonsin stoppat en enda terroristattack, men det kostar miljardbelopp och det kränker våra mänskliga rättigheter. Det är inte acceptabelt. USA ska vara vår vän, inte vår storebror.

Massövervakningen är inte något som skyddar vårt demokratiska samhälle. Det är ett direkt hot mot det. Edward Snowden är en hjälte och det är inte bara vår skyldighet att ge honom asyl och skydd. Det skulle vara en ära.


  Nikola Vuljanić (GUE/NGL). - Gospodine predsjedniče, teško je govoriti o transatlantskom partnerstvu i prijateljstvu kad jedna strana nadzire druge. Isto tako, teško je govoriti o transatlantskom dijalogu kad jedna strana unaprijed zna što će druga reći. Borba protiv terorizma ne smije i ne služi kao izgovor za kršenje ljudskih prava i sloboda, a niti za ekonomsko špijuniranje. Makar države članice, pojedinačne, i ne bile kadre da se individualno izbore za status ravnopravnih partnera u svojim odnosima sa SAD-om, siguran sam da Europska unija to može i hoće.

Smatram da odnose između Europske unije i SAD-a treba postaviti na neke sasvim nove temelje. Ne mogu ni zamisliti kakva bi bila reakcija Sjedinjenih Država da se, recimo, ustanovilo da neka nadzorna služba Europske unije nadzire i prisluškuje Baracka Obamu, kao što se ustanovilo da oni nadziru i prisluškuju Angelu Merkel.


  Димитър Стоянов (NI). - Г-н Председател, във второто десетилетие на двадесет и първи век може да кажем, че една голяма част от нашия живот ние го живеем в електронното пространство, живеем го в социалните мрежи, живеем го в своите видео-канали, живеем го чрез имейл акаунтите си, чрез съобщенията, които изпращаме, чрез интернет.

Не бих казал, че има голяма разлика вече между нашия физически дом, където живеем физически, и всъщност всички тези неща, които изброих, които представляват нашия електронен дом. Той трябва да бъде също толкова неприкосновен, колкото и нашият физически дом. Затова аз напълно подкрепям направените предложения за закон за електронните свободи, за закон за електронен хабеас корпус.

Но докато това се случи ние не можем да оставим тази ситуация, която е в момента, да продължава. Точно докато не наложим ясни правила за прозрачност, няма как да продължаваме да трансферираме данни към националната служба за сигурност на Съединените щати. Затова споразуменията с Щатите трябва да бъдат отменени и предоговорени, когато имаме система, която да контролира злоупотребите, които биха могли да бъдат извършени.


  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD). - Z jednej strony zrozumiały jest emocjonalny sprzeciw tych wszystkich, którzy, dowiadując się o masowej inwigilacji telefonów, internetu, nie chcą się z tym zgodzić i[nbsp ]domagają się zdecydowanej reakcji Parlamentu Europejskiego i[nbsp ]innych organów Unii Europejskiej.

Z[nbsp ]drugiej strony nasuwa się też takie pytanie: czy doszłoby do strasznej tragedii World Trade Center w 2001 roku, w wyniku której ludzie płonęli żywcem, spadali z[nbsp ]ogromnej wysokości, tracąc życie, gdyby służby wywiadowcze w sposób bardziej skuteczny i[nbsp ]konsekwentny śledziły internet i[nbsp ]telefony, trafiając na sygnał wskazujący na zamiary przestępcze terrorystów? Czy doszłoby do straszliwej tragedii w Madrycie, do wybuchów w[nbsp ]kolejce miejskiej i[nbsp ]utraty życia przez wielu też młodych ludzi, gdyby służby działały bardziej skutecznie i[nbsp ]zdobywały informacje?

Trzeba szukać złotego środka, rozumiejąc z jednej strony potrzeby gwarancji obywatelskich, a z drugiej potrzebę tworzenia skutecznych instrumentów na rzecz służb, które będą stały na straży bezpieczeństwa obywateli Europy.




Τέλος διαδικασίας "catch the eye"


  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, our work to restore trust and champion fundamental rights can bring enormous benefits to our citizens and our businesses alike. I think we have underlined this during the whole afternoon, not only in this debate but also in the former debate on data protection.

In my opening remarks I referred to my proposed data protection compact for Europe. I now wish to conclude by reiterating the main principles underpinning the compact: the need to adopt the data protection reform in all its parts because the regulation, but also the directive on law enforcement, are both very important.

The directive, by the way, would cover the field we were discussing in the second debate just now. Law enforcement authorities also need to fall under basic rules of data protection, and those basic rules of data protection are not a figment of the imagination of some politicians. They are inscribed in the Treaties of the European Union, so they are fundamental rights at all levels of policymaking.

We need to engage in a public debate on civil liberties to ensure that data collection is targeted, limited, and proportionate; that national security justifications are invoked sparingly; that judicial oversight is key and that data protection rules should transcend nationality and geography.

Madam President, we are not far from sharing the same objectives, and I believe that we can work together to make digital self-determination a reality in our policymaking, our daily lives and our relationship with our global partners. That is the way to promote our digital Europe. It is also the way to promote the rights of our citizens. These are a must, an obligation, and that is what all politicians – whatever their party – should strive for.


  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. - Madam President, the Chair who was presiding over this meeting before you drew my attention to a possible lapsus linguae, namely that I might have said ‘on the other side of the Channel’ instead of ‘on the other side of the Atlantic’. I checked my written notes and I had written that ‘we are listening with interest to the democratic debate that is going on on the other side of the Atlantic’.

Perhaps the record will show that I made a lapsus linguae, for which I apologise. In any case, I think that nobody should try to make any political or psychoanalytical misinterpretation of such a lapse. I am fully aware of the political consequences of being on the other side of the Atlantic or being on the other side of the Channel.

Now, on what was a very interesting debate: it was said that the Council is silent and indifferent. I just want to remind you once again that the Council, the Member States and the Commission have – together with the United States – set up a US ad hoc working group on data protection, which was tasked to look into the legal framework for the US surveillance activities impacting on persons resident in the EU. The EU Chairs of this ad hoc working group issued their report on 27[nbsp ]November[nbsp ]2013.

More generally, I think it is in the interest of both sides of the Atlantic to clarify this issue. If citizens are concerned about the processing of their data by private companies or public authorities, this might affect their trust in the digital economy – with potential negative consequences on growth. This is also true for US companies. Indeed, trust is key to the secure and efficient functioning of the digital economy.

This reinforces the point that I made earlier, namely that the only way to address this important issue raised by the debate today is by engaging in a constructive and rigorous dialogue with the United States. The EU and the US cherish a strategic partnership based on shared values, as well as close and wide-ranging cooperation in all possible fields. Mutual trust can only better serve this valuable partnership.


  Claude Moraes, rapporteur. - I have two comments: one to Parliament (to my colleagues), and one, I am afraid, to the Council. The first to my parliamentary colleagues. I predicted at the beginning of this debate that there was going to be a high quality of debate, for a very simple reason: unlike all the Member States, this Parliament embarked on an inquiry having already started on the data protection regulation.

The maturity and expertise in this Parliament should not be doubted. And I say to my colleagues who are tabling amendments and who have worked so hard, who came to Washington, who sat through hours of testimony and did their work, to my colleague who led the Echelon inquiry: all of you are doing what none of the Member States have done.

This is the only international inquiry into mass surveillance – into the most sensitive issue, our intelligence services, which do a brilliant job, in defending us and in dealing with cybersecurity, the most sensitive issue – and we had to deal with that and deal with this issue of mass surveillance. There are no more sensitive fundamental rights issues than this, and here was the expertise in this Parliament. I was not the full expert on this issue but I witnessed this – sometimes passionate – debate today, and I am very pleased to have heard what I have heard today.

I would say to my colleagues in Parliament that when we look at this digital bill of rights, which I believe is fit for the surveillance age, there will be aspects of it dealing with Safe Harbour, TFTP and so on, which may not be exactly to the taste of everyone. But I would say to you: look at the fact that we have built a digital bill of rights, a digital habeas corpus, which is sellable to our citizens, because this is about fundamental rights.

I would say to the Council – and please forgive me for saying this – that the reason we need to have a unified voice tomorrow in the vote is because Parliament is so unique. Even Congress in the United States has not had an inquiry. Edward Snowdon has not given evidence to Congress.

Here we had our inquiry, and I would say to the Council, which has been silent on all of these things, that tomorrow, if we vote in favour of this report and a digital bill of rights – a digital habeas corpus fit for our surveillance age – we will be sending a message to our citizens that this Parliament is capable across the political groups of answering their concerns in a comprehsive and balanced way.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Madam President, I have two points of order. One is in relation to the right of the Vice-President to call whom he likes for the catch-the-eye. I accept that completely, but I would have to question the fairness of the Vice-President saying that he is going to take five people – one from each political group – when the political groups vary enormously in size, with some four or five times bigger than the others.

Secondly, I would also have to question the use – or perhaps the abuse – of the blue card. Some of the supposed questions are not questions at all, but statements. Furthermore, they go way beyond the 30-second limit. Thirdly, some people are allowed in again and again, and they speak two, three or four times in a single debate. This means that people who sit here all the time wanting to contribute at the end and during the catch-the-eye have to be cut out.

I just wanted to make those two points. Thank you very much for your indulgence.



  President. - Mr Kelly, very briefly: in terms of choosing who is going to take the floor in the frame of catch-the-eye, the Chair needs to ensure that there is a political balance between the speakers, despite the different level of influence between the different political groups. In terms of misusing the blue cards, I agree with you, but it is also a matter of conscience of each other.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 12[nbsp ]March[nbsp ]2014.

Written statements (Rule 149)


  Nessa Childers (NI), in writing. Recommendations to boost EU citizens’ privacy and establishment of European whistle-blower protection: whilst the 4th round of TTIP talks are underway this week, several aspects need to be examined carefully before talks conclude. Most important among these is that TTIP should not compromise our citizens’ personal data. The data protection packages voted through today aim to strengthen the EU’s current existing data protection laws, particularly in light of the recent NSA and Wikileaks revelations. I voted in favour of the report and welcome novel aspects such as the considerations regarding granting whistle-blowers international protection from prosecution and Europe being able to develop its own IT clouds, thereby enhancing the current levels of personal data protection. Additionally, I welcome the proposal that Member States check their own secret services to ensure that they are subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight and public scrutiny and that they comply with fundamental rights obligations.

Last updated: 9 May 2014Legal notice