Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι οι προφορικές ερωτήσεις προς το Συμβούλιο και την Επιτροπή όσον αφορά τη συνέχεια που δόθηκε στο ψήφισμα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, της 12ης Μαρτίου 2014, σχετικά με τη μαζική ηλεκτρονική παρακολούθηση πολιτών της ΕΕ, που κατέθεσε ο Claude Moraes, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών, Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων

((O-000114/2015 - B8-0769/2015) – (O-000115/2015 - B8-0770/2015) – (2015/2635(RSP))

  Claude Moraes, author. – Madam President, again I am not in my usual seat for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The oral question which I present today to the Commissioner – he is not yet in his place – but I am going to present the questions first and then explain this very sensitive and important topic to colleagues. The questions that we are going to present in the oral question are first of all: what is the Council’s and Commissionʼs general political assessment as to any electronic mass surveillance EU citizens are subject to? Do the Council and Commission consider EU citizens to be sufficiently protected against unnecessary electronic mass surveillance? What measures have the Council and Commission undertaken since the adoption of the resolution of 12 March 2014 in order to protect fundamental rights in a digital age, and what further measures do the Council and Commission plan to take? I am very conscious – Commissioner, I am sorry that you have just taken your seat, but I am sure you will catch up – that these are very broad questions, but what I want to say to colleagues present in the Chamber is that one of the most surprising things about the inquiry of March 2014 into mass surveillance was the outcome of the plenary vote – an extraordinary 544 Members in this plenary across the political spectrum voted for a very sensitive and far-reaching report. They did it because they were acting in a very mature way; they understood that what was happening was that we were not just dealing with one of the most important issues that all individual sovereign countries have to deal with – that is: the protection of their citizens, and therefore intelligence agencies have to do their work – but we were dealing with one of the biggest growth areas in the confidence, in the privacy of individual citizens, you and I. And we have seen in recent days massive data breaches of major telecom companies like Talk Talk. We have seen the judgment on Safe Harbour; and it is very prescient that such an important vote took place in March 2014 because human rights in a digital age were taken very seriously by this Parliament for a reason, and that is that privacy is not a soft option; privacy is fundamental to consumer confidence; privacy is fundamental to human rights in the digital age.

So the resolution that we present to Members and to the Commission and Council is about what follow-up we have. In this follow-up resolution, if I take one example, the Safe Harbour judgment of the European Court of Justice, we have a situation where the European Parliament warned incessantly that Safe Harbour was not safe, that the transfers of mass data from the European Union which had higher standards of data protection compared to the United States, which had lower standards, would end up with this kind of situation and a negative situation. We warned of mass surveillance, not for security and purposes of protecting individuals, but simply mass surveillance, very expensive mass surveillance, which was uncontrolled, which has negative implications. Since then the Council of Europe and individual Member States, individual parliaments of Member States, have gone into great detail with their inquiries. And I am very proud that this Parliament went into great detail in the post-Snowden era on digital rights and human rights in the digital era, because we were able to say, on the one hand, that this is vital to tackle terrorism, it is vital to tackle security threats, but that it is incredibly important to understand that we will not do this if there is no credibility in the way that mass surveillance is carried out.

I think we set some good standards in March 2014. What we are now trying to do in this oral question is to see, with the four questions I have put to both Council and Commission, what follow up we actually have on all of these key points. For the European Union, with the trilogues currently running on data regulation, and on the question of the Data Directive, but also on the agreements on PNR, on SWIFT and so on, it is very important that we understand that the European Union is itself invested in transferring data as a European Union to other places; and for that reason we have the competence and we have the need to understand these issues and get these issues fixed. But most importantly it is about the privacy of the citizen, paramountly, and we need to represent the citizen, ensure they are confident in their privacy and ensure they have the confidence to go forward, and they feel they are represented. Look around you and see whether that is necessary and then look at this resolution and see whether it is worthy of support. So I hand over to the Commission and Council to tell us what they are now doing on this resolution and the questions I have put.

PUHETTA JOHTI ANNELI JÄÄTTEENMÄKI
varapuhemies

  Nicolas Schmit, président en exercice du Conseil. - Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, permettez-moi d'abord de souhaiter aussi – puisque je l'avais oublié lors de la question précédente – un prompt rétablissement à M. le président de la commission LIBE.

Le Conseil partage les préoccupations du Parlement concernant les programmes secrets de surveillance ainsi que leurs incidences sur la vie privée et les données à caractère personnel des citoyens de l'Union. Cela a été souligné à plusieurs reprises par les présidences précédentes, dans le cadre des débats que la plénière a consacrés à ce sujet.

Les États doivent prendre des mesures pour protéger leurs citoyens, certes, contre le terrorisme et d'autres atteintes à leur souveraineté; toutefois, ces mesures doivent également protéger les droits fondamentaux. Les approches adoptées sur le plan international pour trouver un équilibre entre protection des données et sécurité varient d'un pays à l'autre. Au niveau de l'Union européenne, le point de départ est d'abord le respect de la charte des droits fondamentaux, y compris le droit à la protection des données à caractère personnel des citoyens européens.

Aux États-Unis, l'appréciation de la sécurité et de la protection est liée à l'expérience propre à ce pays, et donc différente de ce qu'elle est en Europe. Il n'en demeure pas moins que les États-Unis accordent une importance croissante aux considérations tenant à la protection des données, comme en témoignent le Freedom Act, adopté en juin 2015, ainsi que le Judicial Redress Act, présenté récemment devant le Congrès.

Compte tenu du volume de plus en plus important du flux de données de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique, il est clair que l'équilibre entre protection et sécurité nécessite un débat constant entre l'Union et les États-Unis. De notre côté, le Parlement européen, le Conseil et la Commission, agissant chacun selon leurs compétences, doivent jouer pleinement leur rôle.

Le rapport que vous avez présenté, Monsieur Moraes, en 2014 a souligné, à juste titre, que le recours croissant à la surveillance de masse n'a été précédé d'aucun débat public démocratique. Pour assurer comme il se doit la protection des données, il faut faire preuve d'une vigilance constante. Le Parlement européen avait fait preuve de vigilance, d'ailleurs, concernant l'accord Safe Harbor. Je ne reviendrai pas ici sur le débat que nous avons eu à ce sujet lors de la mini-plénière du 14 octobre à Bruxelles, il appartient à la Commission de réserver le suivi approprié à l'arrêt de la Cour.

Permettez-moi de citer deux développements internationaux positifs dans le domaine de la surveillance. Premièrement, le texte de l'accord-cadre sur la protection des données a été paraphé en septembre. Il s'agit d'un pas en avant pour ce qui est de garantir la protection des données et d'offrir aux citoyens de l'Union des mécanismes, aux États-Unis, de recours juridictionnel en matière répressive. Le Conseil attend la proposition de la Commission concernant la conclusion de l'accord-cadre et le Parlement européen sera appelé à donner son approbation à cette proposition. Deuxièmement, le Judicial Redress Act, qui a été présenté devant le Congrès. Ces deux développements contribuent à protéger le droit fondamental des citoyens de l'Union à la protection de leurs données.

Revenons maintenant à la question que vous avez posée, M. Moraes, à savoir les mesures prises à la suite de la résolution du 12 mars 2014. Je voudrais rappeler ce qui suit.

Premièrement, la protection des droits fondamentaux à l'ère numérique est une question qui figure en permanence à l'ordre du jour des réunions entre l'Union européenne et les États-Unis, au niveau des hauts fonctionnaires comme au niveau politique. Ces réunions ont permis de rétablir la confiance quant au traitement des données personnelles et ont amené les autorités américaines à présenter précisément le Judicial Redress Act devant le Congrès.

Deuxièmement, je voudrais également rappeler la réunion qui a eu lieu à Riga, le 3 juin 2015, entre les ministres des affaires intérieures et de la justice de l'Union et des États-Unis. Cette réunion a débouché sur la déclaration de Riga, qui définit les actions spécifiques de coopération pour les cinq années à venir, destinées à relever plus efficacement ces questions. Ces actions portent notamment sur des mesures ayant trait à la protection des données et comportent un engagement des deux parties à renforcer la mise en œuvre de l'accord en matière d'entraide judiciaire qu'elles ont conclu, afin que les services répressifs puissent mieux coopérer dans le respect, précisément, de la protection des données.

Enfin, pour ce qui est de la protection des données à l'intérieur de l'Union, le Conseil a accordé la priorité à l'intensification des négociations avec le Parlement européen sur le paquet relatif à la protection des données. Je me réjouis d'ailleurs tout particulièrement des travaux intensifs qui sont actuellement consacrés tant au règlement général sur la protection des données qu'à la directive sur la protection des données à des fins répressives.

Le Conseil et le Parlement sont tous deux résolus à adopter, d'ici la fin de l'année, un cadre fort concernant la protection des données. Sur cette base, le Conseil continuera de coopérer avec le Parlement et la Commission pour renforcer les droits au respect de la vie privée et développer l'économie numérique de l'Europe.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, the Commission remains concerned about media reports on surveillance programmes of the Member State intelligence services which appear to enable large—scale access to, and processing of, the data of Europeans. At the same time, the area of national security falls within the competence of Member States.

However, these exception clauses for national security need to be interpreted strictly in the light of settled Court of Justice case law. In its ruling of 6 October 2015 in the Schrems case, the European Court of Justice further clarified that any legislation permitting public authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to the respect of private life as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter. Likewise, legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data compromises the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter.

As regards the protection of fundamental rights within the scope of EU law, let me point out the following. As Members know, two proposals for our data protection reform are at the last stage of interinstitutional negotiations. They will increase the standard of the protection of personal data within the European Union. Furthermore, on 8 September 2015, the Commission initialised with the US the ‘umbrella agreement’. The agreement covers all personal data exchanged between the EU and the US for the purpose of prevention of and prosecution for criminal offences, including terrorism. The Commission will propose signature and conclusion of the agreement only after the US Judicial Redress Bill, granting judicial redress rights to EU citizens, has been adopted. The bill has just passed through the House and we hope for rapid progress in the Senate as well. The umbrella agreement will guarantee a high level of protection of all personal data when transported between law enforcement authorities across the Atlantic. It will, in particular guarantee, that all EU citizens will have non-discriminatory access to US courts under the Privacy Act.

Regarding Parliament’s request for the development of the European strategy for greater IT independence, the Commission is working to address the main points of the strategy by establishing the contractual public—private partnership on cybersecurity. The goal of this initiative, to be launched in 2016, will be to stimulate the competitiveness and innovation capacities of the digital security and privacy industry in Europe. Research and innovation projects on privacy and cyber security have already been launched using Horizon 2020 funding, and these activities will be pursued under the PPP. Moreover, the negotiations of the Network and Information Securities Directive, which aims to increase Member States’ capacity to react to cyber threats in a coordinated manner while imposing security requirements on critical infrastructure providers, should be completed by the end of this year.

The Commission further announced its intention to reform the ePrivacy Directive in the Digital Single Market strategy as soon as the general data protection reform has been adopted, with a focus on ensuring a high level of protection for data subjects and a level playing field for all market players. This includes a high degree of confidentiality of communications in Europe.

The Commission is also committed to increasing trust in cloud computing by launching a series of initiatives in 2016 covering certification, contracts, switching providers and a research open science cloud, as well as the support of the free flow of non-personal data. Also in the Digital Single Market strategy, the Commission announced that it will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the role of intermediaries in tackling illegal content online.

Finally, the Commission would like to underline that it has been for many years a major user of open source systems, for example its data centre. It would also like to refer to the strategy for internal use of Open Source Software, which was updated in July 2015.

Security and confidentiality are systematically considered when defining the tendering specifications in the Commission’s IT contracts. All Commission contracts contain a clause referring to the applicable data protection legislation. The legal framework for procurement does not, however, allow favouring particular business models or limiting the award of contracts to EU companies.

A thorough review and assessment of the Commission’s exposure in terms of IT security has been launched with a view to establishing an IT security reference framework to structure and prioritise a range of short-term actions and a longer term IT security strategy. Against a threat landscape that is becoming ever more challenging with increasingly sophisticated attacks, the Commission’s Chief Information Security Officer collaborates closely with the CERT-EU to prevent cyber threats, detect them at an early stage and work towards a quick resolution. CERT-EU collaborates with the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security on lessons learned to improve the protection of networks and with the European Cybercrime Centre in the context of threat assessment.

  Axel Voss, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Vielen Dank, Frau Präsidentin! 2013 haben wir mit damit begonnen, uns aufgrund der NSA-Vorkommnisse mit der Massenüberwachung von unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern zu beschäftigen. Das war richtig und das war auch wichtig.

Wir haben uns auch dazu verpflichtet, das Thema weiter zu beobachten – auch das ist richtig. Doch was nun in diesem Entschließungsantrag herausgekommen ist, sind aus meiner Sicht zum großen Teil ideologische Forderungen, die mit der Massenüberwachung überhaupt nicht mehr im Zusammenhang stehen. Es sollte uns doch eigentlich hier mehr um die Balance zwischen der allgemeinen Sicherheit und der Privatsphäre des Einzelnen gehen.

Wir sind deshalb als EVP-Fraktion für Sicherheitsstandards von Mobilfunk oder auch Online-Kommunikation, wir sind für den Schutz der EU-Institutionen und der entsprechenden nationalen bzw. europäischen Akteure, wir sind für eine vertrauenswürdige europäische cloud, wir sind auch für die Stärkung des cyber centers von Europol, wir sind für Verschlüsselungen in diesem Bereich, wir sind für einen ausgewogenen Datenschutz, wir sind auch für die Prüfung der Geheimdienste. vielleicht sogar bis hin zu einer Etablierung eines europäischen Geheimdienstes.

Aber was hat das mit TTIP oder dem TFTP-Programm zu tun? Was hilft die Forderung unseren Bürgern, Snowden strafrechtlich freizustellen, wenn wir dazu noch nicht einmal eine Kompetenz haben? Was soll eine sunset clause für alle Gesetzestexte hier bringen, ohne ausreichende entsprechende Beobachtung, wo es doch eigentlich schon reichen würde, eine Anpassung vorzunehmen. Das ist völlig unverhältnismäßig und zum Schutz unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger auch völlig irrelevant. Deshalb meine ich, ist das hier auch fahrlässig in puncto allgemeiner Sicherheit.

Wir müssen uns noch mehr und besser dem Wandel anpassen und die richtigen Strukturen implementieren, damit die Sicherheit Europas auch gewahrt wird.

  President. – There are blue cards but we are running a little late so we will not accept them at this point, but will take catch-the-eye.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora Presidenta, a finales de la pasada legislatura el estallido del caso Snowden conmocionó, a justo título, a la ciudadanía europea y le hizo tomar conciencia de sus derechos fundamentales, más vulnerables que nunca. Tuve el honor de presidir, como presidente de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, la comisión de seguimiento, que produjo unas conclusiones relevantes, entre las cuales, la primera, el impulso al paquete de protección de datos, todavía pendiente de ser completado; además, regular la figura del whistleblower, el delator, para ofrecerle garantía penal y procesal.

Además, exigir que la Comisión Europea ponga en marcha todas las medidas para blindarse frente al espionaje de terceros, pero también y, sobre todo, suspender el acuerdo Safe Harbour, que ha sido declarado inválido por el Tribunal de Justicia por incompatible con los derechos fundamentales europeos proclamados por la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea.

El sentido de esta pregunta es saber exactamente cómo piensa la Comisión asegurarse de que esa sentencia es vinculante no solamente para la relación bilateral con los Estados Unidos, sino también para la vigilancia masiva que ha sido practicada por los propios Estados miembros de la Unión Europea. Porque la sentencia va más allá de la relación bilateral con los Estados Unidos. La sentencia vincula también a los propios Estados miembros de la Unión Europea y compromete también las prácticas ilegítimas e incompatibles con el Derecho europeo de violación masiva de la privacidad de los ciudadanos.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, our rights and our freedoms must always be the compass which guide society. These rights must always be defended with equal force to that which we use to defend our borders and our safety. Robust data protection and digital privacy laws must be constantly updated for the modern world, and accountability and effective and meaningful oversight of the agencies and the institutions charged with keeping us safe must form part of the fabric of democratic norms.

Of course, independent and thorough investigation must take place where any potential wrongdoing is revealed. This is essential if citizens are to have confidence in the people entrusted with protecting us. However, I cannot support this resolution. I will never regard Edward Snowden or his actions as ‘heroic’. I cannot bestow the label of hero upon a person who has endangered the lives of so many citizens across the world and those individuals serving overseas who risk their lives, day in and day out, to protect ours.

In my opinion the language in this resolution does little to offer a sensible approach but instead just seeks to escalate the rhetoric. I fail to see how producing a report from an investigation conducted in the political arena, with no access to official documents, with no powers to call relevant individuals to give evidence, and with no competence under EU law, can produce recommendations with even the smallest perceived amount of objectivity.

I cannot in conscience ever support a resolution of this Parliament that calls for the suspension of important anti-terror agreements with the United States given the security situation in Europe at present. A resolution of this kind, in my view, is something that can never be credible, relevant or responsible in the legitimate quest to provide real oversight and protection of individual rights for the people of Europe as a whole.

  Cecilia Wikström, för ALDE-gruppen. – Fru talman! Nu är det hög tid att vi lämnar retoriken och högtidstalen och istället står upp för och på allvar försvarar de grundläggande mänskliga rättigheterna, där massövervakning absolut inte ingår. Det finns för liberaler inget utrymme för massövervakning av medborgarna.

Utvecklingen är oroande runtom i Europa. Vi ser flera steg bakåt faktiskt när det gäller just synen på den personliga integriteten och dataskyddet. Istället verkar utgångspunkten alltmer bygga på det felaktiga antagandet att ju mer data vi samlar in, desto säkrare blir medborgarna. Inget kunde vara mera fel!

Min grupp beklagar djupt att rådet och kommissionen konsekvent fram tills idag har vägrat att svara på parlamentets frågor, som vi ställde för första gången för över ett år sedan i samband med debatten om massövervakning. Vi är också väldigt oroade över den lagstiftning som nu stiftas i flera medlemsländer, där massdatalagring i bulk nu blir praxis.

Storbritannien antog en lag 2014 som man nu måste se över, eftersom högsta domstolen, the High Court, har ogiltigförklarat den. Tyskland har precis beslutat om ny datalagringslagstiftning, och Frankrike har infört möjligheten för massövervakning av medborgarna för sin underrättelsetjänst.

Vi är också djupt oroade över den nederländska underrättelselagstiftningen. Jag uppmanar verkligen här och nu mina liberala kolleger i den nederländska regeringen att se till att noggrant beakta gårdagens dom i Prakken d'Oliveira-målet. Den domen förbjuder övervakning av advokaters kommunikationer tills en oberoende översyn kommer till stånd.

EU-domstolens beslut häromveckan när det gäller Safe Harbor borde också vara en väckarklocka för alla. I det domslutet slås det nämligen fast att den amerikanska massövervakningen inte är förenlig med EU:s lagar och principer.

Vi måste nu börja sopa framför vår egen dörr och inte vara beroende av att domstolarna ska ställa tillrätta den lagstiftning som vi tillsammans borde ta ansvar för att se till att den faktiskt ställer grundläggande rättigheter i centrum. Det är allas vår uppgift att inte skydda regeringar utan att skydda medborgarnas grundläggande rättigheter och försvarandet av de europeiska värderingarna.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Nicht nur, dass die NSA munter weiter spioniert, herumspioniert, Millionen Menschen ausspäht – auch in den nationalen Staaten sieht es nicht besser aus.

Im Juni 2015 beschloss der Bundestag eine Gesetzesänderung, so dass der BND fortan legal den Internetknoten Frankfurt überwachen darf. Ebenfalls im Juni 2015 verabschiedete Frankreich ein Gesetz, um die Überwachungskompetenzen der Geheimdienste massiv zu erweitern. Österreich hat ein neues Staatsschutzgesetz vor, und die niederländische Regierung will die Befugnisse der Geheimdienste auch ausweiten und nicht mehr kontrollieren.

Dass wir als einziges Parlament der Welt – kann man ja sagen – einen Untersuchungsbericht zur NSA-Massenüberwachung und einen Folgebericht erstellt haben und damit eindringlich zur Beendigung der Massenüberwachung aufrufen, das interessiert weder die Kommission wirklich, noch den Rat, und schon gar nicht irgendeine Regierung in Europa. Und da – in dem Moment – fragt man sich doch wirklich ernsthaft: Wie steht es um das Verhältnis zwischen Bürger und Staat? Hängt doch genau von diesem Verhältnis ab, ob ein Gemeinwesen als demokratisch oder diktatorisch eingeschätzt werden kann.

Wie frei ist denn ein Bürger in einem Staatswesen, wenn er rundum überwacht werden kann? Was bleibt von Meinungs-, Kommunikations- und Pressefreiheit? Zum Rechtsstaatsprinzip gehört doch die Freiheit der Bürger, das heißt, dass der Staat für den Menschen da sein muss und nicht umgekehrt. Was ist von einer repräsentativen Demokratie übrig geblieben, wenn der Wille eines frei gewählten Parlaments wie unseres nichts mehr zählt? Wenn es vollkommen egal ist, dass sich Hunderttausende Menschen in Petitionen gegen die Massenüberwachung stark machen? Und wenn Gerichte über die Vorratsdatenspeicherung urteilen und diese für null und nichtig erklären und den Schutz personenbezogener Daten als Grundrecht einfordern, das umgesetzt werden soll, hier in Europa und darüber hinaus?

Was hier geschieht, ist doch eine Entmündigung der Menschen in Europa, und eben dieser müssen wir als Demokraten wirklich den Kampf ansagen.

Mein letzter Satz ist: Ich danke Edward Snowden für das, was er gemacht hat, und ich danke im Übrigen auch Max Schrems.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, it is now two years and four months ago since Edward Snowden revealed his knowledge about massive infringements by intelligence services of EU states and the United States. I think this is the moment, at least, where Heads of States and the European Commission should act and take their responsibilities.

Until now there have been only two reactions to the revelations by Snowden, both of them taking seriously what he has said. The first is the US administration: Obama has conducted an investigation and changed the surveillance measures, but with regard to its own citizens, not with regard to European citizens or anyone else in the world where its intelligence services are spying on us. That is the problem.

The second reaction is not by any politician in the European Union, not by any head of state, nor by any minister has there been taken action on behalf of the Snowden revelations, but here it was the highest court which took the action three weeks ago with the judgment on Safe Harbour. There it clearly referred to the facts revealed by Edward Snowden. If the highest court of the European Union says there is something which Edward Snowden rightfully said is an infringement to the Fundamental Rights Charter to our Treaties, should we not take that seriously? Should not the Commission start infringement procedures against those Member States which obviously still cooperate with those intelligence services, or even have intelligence services doing the same unlawful activities? This is not any more in the area of national security, which in Europe is obviously becoming the black hole of the rule of law.

Every single Member State – and I looked at the count – says that the European Union and the law does not apply to national security. But does that mean that fundamental rights and the rule of law do not apply? Where is the activity by the Council, and where is the activity with regard to common rules and standards for intelligence services in Europe and for the protection of each individual’s fundamental right before the courts, effective judicial protection? That will be brought up by the Strasbourg Court if you do not act, at least in some years, because there are cases. Relying on individuals to fix the rule of law, this is not the right way.

  Ignazio Corrao, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi sembra chiaro che su questo tema, in questo momento, ci troviamo di fronte ad un'enorme contraddizione da parte dell'Unione europea nel suo insieme, perché se da una parte ci vogliamo proclamare come pionieri, come istituzione baluardo nella difesa dei diritti fondamentali, dall'altra parte ascolto commenti da parte dei colleghi conservatori o dei colleghi dell'area popolare secondo cui facilmente si può rinunciare o si possono sospendere queste tutele dei diritti fondamentali, e dall'altra parte vedo pure una Commissione che è disinteressata a questo tema.

E abbiamo dovuto aspettare che fosse la Corte di giustizia a dirci che, su questo caso tirato fuori da Snowden, sulla sorveglianza di massa, sullo spionaggio di massa fatto dai servizi di intelligence americani, non va bene l'atteggiamento che è stato preso dalla Commissione. Non va bene quest'accordo che abbiamo con loro, questo safe harbour.

Allora io mi aspetto, credo e spero che dopo questa discussione cambi l'approccio, cambi l'atteggiamento e si rimettano i diritti fondamentali e la tutela di questi diritti fondamentali dei cittadini europei davanti ad altri tipi di interessi.

  Janice Atkinson, on behalf of the ENF Group. – Madam President, I also would like to wish Mr Moraes a speedy recovery.

It is clear that the privacy of our citizens and our fundamental rights should be adequately protected. Institutions snooping on all of us without proper controls is something that has no place in a democratic society, but it is up to our national parliaments and national courts to strike the balance between upholding civil liberties of our citizens and ensuring our nationʼs security. Let us not forget that it is exactly the EU Commission’s Safe Harbour Agreement with the USA that gave citizens a false sense of security and national supervisory authorities that had such a passive role. This is one of the main conclusions of the ECJ ruling.

While I hear the European Parliament pointing out the dangers of mass surveillance of citizens by the US in Member States, what actually worries me more is the EUʼs ambitions to set up its own secret service agency – in fact, a spy agency. Indeed, it was even Mr Juncker who has suggested earlier this year that he would like to establish an EU spying agency. The last thing we want is Big Brother spying on the EU Member States and their citizens. The European Parliament has no jurisdiction whatsoever to involve itself in any way in how the nation states are running their security agencies. It is up to the Member States, not the EU, to uphold their own data protection laws and negotiate proper agreements with the countries.

However, I do pose an alternative. I strongly suggest that the Commissioners watch the new James Bond film, Spectre. Perhaps Mr Juncker would consider applying for Mʼs position and Mr Timmermans, with his many languages, might apply to replace Daniel Craig as 007. If so, they will be under the control of the British Government and not the EU, which is as it should be.

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης ( NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η μαζική, διαρκής και ανεξέλεγκτη παρακολούθηση των ευρωπαίων πολιτών είναι, δυστυχώς, ακόμα και σήμερα πραγματικότητα. Οι κυβερνήσεις των κρατών μελών, σε γνώση μάλιστα και των ευρωπαϊκών θεσμών, προχωρούν σε συνεχείς παρακολουθήσεις όλων μας. Αποδεικνύουν την υποκρισία τους και ταυτόχρονα πόσο ψεύτικο είναι το προσωπείο του δήθεν ανθρωπισμού τους, καθώς και πόσο ψεύτικα είναι τα λόγια τους, όταν αναφέρονται στην προστασία των δικαιωμάτων των πολιτών.

Από έγγραφα που έχουν διαρρεύσει, έχει αποκαλυφθεί η πάγια τακτική ορισμένων ευρωπαϊκών χωρών να παρακολουθούν συστηματικά τόσο τις συνομιλίες και τις επικοινωνίες των πολιτών, όσο ακόμα και τις συνομιλίες πολιτικών, χωρίς να υπάρχει νόμιμη εντολή απ’ τις δικαστικές αρχές. Επίσης, έχει αποκαλυφθεί, στη συνέχεια, η απροθυμία της δικαστικής εξουσίας να προχωρήσει σε έρευνες σχετικά με τις διάφορες καταγγελίες. Χαρακτηριστικά παραδείγματα: η παρακολούθηση μεγάλου αριθμού ευρωπαίων πολιτικών από τις γερμανικές μυστικές υπηρεσίες, για λογαριασμό της Αμερικανικής Υπηρεσίας Εθνικής Ασφάλειας· επίσης, η παρακολούθηση και στη συνέχεια δημοσιοποίηση χωρίς καμία άδεια, από τις ελληνικές υπηρεσίες, των συνομιλιών των στελεχών του κινήματός μας, της Χρυσής Αυγής.

Σε κάθε περίπτωση, το ευρωπαϊκό πολιτικό κατεστημένο αποκαλύπτεται για μια ακόμη φορά ως απλός εντολοδόχος των πέραν του Ατλαντικού εταίρων του. Εμείς, σαν έλληνες εθνικιστές και ταυτόχρονα εκλεγμένοι αντιπρόσωποι του ελληνικού λαού στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, ζητούμε την άμεση παύση οποιασδήποτε τέτοιας παράνομης δραστηριότητας. Επιπλέον, προκειμένου καμία σκιά να μη βαραίνει τις δικαστικές αρχές σε ολόκληρη την Ένωση, ζητούμε την άμεση και παραδειγματική τιμωρία των υπευθύνων για αυτές τις παρακολουθήσεις, καθώς επίσης και όλων όσων τους συγκαλύπτουν τόσον καιρό.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, nejdřív mi dovolte popřát Claudovi Moraesovi, aby se brzo uzdravil, a poděkovat mu za tuto výbornou zprávu. Toto téma je diskutováno na půdě Evropského parlamentu již několik let. Bohužel jsem však nezaznamenal žádný velký pokrok, a to ani po usnesení našeho výboru v květnu tohoto roku. Osobně si myslím, že nemáme na co čekat. Nemusíme zde vést debatu, zda ochrana občanů Evropské unie před hromadným elektronickým sledováním je dostatečná či není. Není dostatečná. Toto je problém, který je velmi naléhavý, a je mi líto, že ani Evropská komise, ani členské státy nejsou ochotny se jím vážně zabývat. V tomto ohledu jsem velice zklamán nedostatečnou reakcí a nečinností ze strany Evropské komise. A věřím, že alespoň tyto předložené otázky ji podnítí k větší aktivitě.

  Marju Lauristin (S&D). – Madam President, as a rapporteur on the Data Protection Directive, I have to say that we are now working on providing European citizens with the highest level of protection of their basic rights, and it is only this which could give us some moral right also to demand the same from all other partners in the world.

But at the same time, as this report shows, things are not in line with those high standards in some or many of our Member States – we do not know how many. The big problem is what was already referred to by my colleague Jan Albrecht, and what also I am very glad was mentioned by the Commissioner, namely that, as national security is under the competence of Member States, we really do not have common EU standards to understand where the borders lie in respect of national security issues, and how a citizen can understand how his rights can be protected when carrying out certain actions, when crossing this border, because the border is not visible.

We in the LIBE Committee have asked the Commission several times to give us a common definition, a common framework, of how in the EU we understand what is national security and what is not, and we have not had a clear answer. Now I ask the Council too, because when we are working on the directive, then we come to this grey area between public security and national security, and it is really very difficult to reach a solution without knowing where this border is and what are the guarantees for the other side of the border, the national security area, so that we really can say to our citizens: yes, we have the highest standards; yes, every EU citizen’s fundamental rights are protected above all other considerations, irrespective of the situation. So I urge the Commission and Council to provide us with this kind of clear knowledge of what we mean by national security.

  Helga Stevens (ECR). – Wij moeten er alles aan doen om te voorkomen wakker te worden in een wereld waarin de overheid op disproportionele wijze ingrijpt in de persoonlijke levenssfeer. De N-VA-delegatie zal morgen niettemin tegen de ontwerpresolutie stemmen. Het Europees Parlement reageert immers verkeerd want het respecteert de bevoegdheidsverdeling niet. Nationale veiligheid is een nationale bevoegdheid en het zijn de EU-lidstaten die de beweringen over stiekem grootschalig elektronisch toezicht ernstig moeten onderzoeken.

Wat de EU daarentegen wél moet doen is gegevensbescherming hoog in het vaandel blijven dragen. Gisteren zijn de trialoogonderhandelingen van start gegaan over de richtlijn gegevensbescherming in de strafrechtelijke sfeer. Dat moet de focus zijn en blijven in plaats van bijvoorbeeld in een kramp waardevolle instrumenten op te schorten, zoals het programma voor het traceren van terrorismefinanciering.

  Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz (ALDE). – Señora Presidenta, las palabras que aquí estamos pronunciando son constantemente «preocupación» y «decepción». Y tenemos que agradecer al señor Moraes las preguntas que está realizando, porque todos nosotros necesitamos responder también a los ciudadanos europeos. La violación de la intimidad es de tal magnitud que los criminales, agencias de inteligencia y empresas de telecomunicaciones saben todos los detalles de nuestra vida. Y de los abusos que están ocurriendo cada día salen a la luz una mínima parte.

La Comisión habla de un entorno difícil y sofisticado; cierto. Desde luego, el entorno es difícil y sofisticado. No estamos seguros. Y estamos decepcionados por la falta de urgencia mostrada por las instituciones y los Estados miembros desde la adopción del informe aprobado en marzo de 2014 en nuestro Parlamento. Si la cuestión es sofisticada y es difícil, ¿por qué no avanzamos más?, ¿por qué no ponemos iguales armas a la amenaza a la forma de vida que debemos tener como ciudadanos libres en una democracia?

Iguales armas, por tanto, a las amenazas a nuestra libertad. ¿Cuánto personal tienen para hacer frente a este reto? La Comisión tiene muchas cosas que contestarnos: qué calendario, qué instrumentos y qué personal necesita.

Si nuestra libertad se ha puesto en la almoneda mediante algoritmos, ¿con qué algoritmos y con qué control judicial vamos a poder defenderla de una forma constante, correcta y precisa? Respóndannos, por favor.

  Eva Joly (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, je veux d'abord saluer le courage d'Edward Snowden. Il a choisi de renoncer à sa liberté pour nous informer de la surveillance massive menée par la NSA. Qu'avez-vous fait de ces révélations? Rien ou presque. Le silence de la Commission est assourdissant. Aucune leçon n'a été tirée. Passé le temps de l'indignation, chacun préfère ignorer que ces droits les plus fondamentaux sont chaque jour bafoués; pire, sous couvert de sécurité, les États – dont la France – adoptent des lois liberticides où les prérogatives des services de renseignement sont élargies, où le contrôle judiciaire et parlementaire est quasi inexistant et où chaque citoyen devient un suspect potentiel.

Quant aux lanceurs d'alerte, la Commission n'a même pas daigné examiner la possibilité de créer un statut européen les protégeant. Snowden aura sacrifié sa liberté pour voir s'édifier la société qu'il redoutait tant, une société qui fiche et fige ses citoyens, qui, loin de les protéger, les suspecte et, loin de les libérer, les contraint. Monsieur Dombrovskis, la Commission compte-t-elle suivre enfin les recommandations du Parlement?

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Madam President, the ruling of 6 October of the Court of Justice striking down the Commission’s Adequacy Decision on the US Safe Harbour Agreement confirms the longstanding doubts on the level of protection provided by this instrument. The decision was to be expected as the 2013 espionage revelations had already exposed the uselessness of the Agreement’s provisions in view of the citizen surveillance programme’s massive scale.

As stated by the Court, permitting public authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications compromises the essence of the fundamental right to privacy, while the lack of provisions on the right of citizens to complain about their data compromises the essence of the right to effective judicial protection.

Against the backdrop of the recent invalidation of the Data Retention Directive, this new ruling calls for urgent action to strike the right balance between security measures and the protection of fundamental rights. Considering, on the one hand, the European conviction that security measures must be pursued under the rule of law and, on the other hand, the vital importance of EU-US counter-terrorism cooperation for both partners, it is of extreme importance that we swiftly take steps to establish common standards in the field of data protection.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, apoio a equilibrada resolução elaborada pelo Presidente da LIBE, Claude Moraes. Edward Snowden, que como whistleblower merece ser protegido e não perseguido, permitiu-nos ficar a saber do programa Prisioner e tudo o mais que viemos a apurar depois e que muito abalou as relações transatlânticas.

Para restaurar a confiança, os Estados Unidos têm de aceitar uma mudança de padrões na construção do seu próprio sistema jurídico de proteção de dados, que é incompatível com o nosso e com os padrões internacionais, e têm de garantir meios de recursos judiciais e administrativos efetivos a europeus e a outros cidadãos, incluindo os americanos.

O novo projeto-lei que ainda ontem foi aprovado pelo Senado, o CISA, Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act , também não pode deixar a União Europeia indiferente. Muitas são as vozes nos Estados Unidos da América que temem que esta lei atente também contra o Freedom of Information Act.

A responsabilidade não é só dos Estados Unidos. Os governos e parlamentos europeus foram coniventes, ou pelo menos complacentes, permitiram a vigilância maciça clandestina dos nossos cidadãos, conviveram com um acordo Safe Harbour inadequado, ultrapassaram comissões nacionais de proteção de dados ou tornaram-nas passivas, negligenciaram o controlo democrático sobre os serviços de informação e têm mostrado uma inadmissível falta de vontade política e de sentido de urgência.

Qual é agora o estatuto global sobre a proteção de dados entre a União Europeia e os Estados Unidos depois do vazio jurídico criado pela decisão do Tribunal de Justiça Europeu no caso Max Schrems?

Temos absolutamente que garantir que os elevados níveis de proteção dos direitos fundamentais consagrados na União Europeia são respeitados e a Comissão tem de fazer valer a decisão do Tribunal agora nas negociações com os Estados Unidos e tem que confrontar os governos e os parlamentos europeus com as suas responsabilidades.

  Beatrix von Storch (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Wir haben wörtlich im März 2014 beschlossen: Das Europäische Parlament fordert die EU-Mitgliedstaaten auf, die pauschale Massenüberwachung zu verbieten.

Das klang toll – irgendwie. Aber das suggeriert die massenhafte Überwachung der Bürger, die dem Staat grundsätzlich erlaubt ist, soweit oder weil sie eben nicht ausdrücklich verboten ist. Das ist das Gegenteil von einem freiheitlichen Rechtsstaat. In einem freiheitlichen Rechtsstaat ist dem Staat jeder Eingriff in die Rechte der Bürger verboten, so er ihm nicht ausdrücklich erlaubt ist. Wir haben also nach eigener Einschätzung offenbar keinen freiheitlichen Rechtsstaat mehr. Aber der ist der Kerngedanke des Staatsdenkens der westlichen Welt.

Dieser Gedanke ist uns verlorengegangen. Wir sind dabei, unsere Werte und unsere Wurzeln zu vergessen. Die liegen in unserer christlich-abendländischen Kultur. Die müssen wir wiederfinden oder bewahren. Das scheint mir das Gebot der Stunde.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Untersuchungsausschuss zur NSA-Affäre war sicherlich einer der Höhepunkte der letzten Legislaturperiode des alten Parlaments. Er hat nicht nur neue Ergebnisse gebracht, sondern er hat vor allem das Vertrauen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in die demokratischen Institutionen gestärkt. Deshalb, so meine ich, ist es notwendig, diese noch sehr junge Tradition dieses Hauses fortzusetzen. Das Vertrauen der Bürger in das Internet durch gesetzliche Regelungen zu stärken, dass auch europäische Daten in Drittstaaten den gleichen Schutz haben sollen.

Diese politische Einsicht wurde durch das Safe-Harbor-Urteil bestätigt. Wir dürfen jetzt nicht zur Tagesordnung übergehen und die Augen verschließen, sondern wir müssen dieses Vakuum, das jetzt entstanden ist, mit Inhalt füllen. Die Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die Verbraucher und die Firmen haben das Recht auf Sicherheit. Wir brauchen konsequente Schritte.

Ich meine, dass der Bericht von Claude Moraes diese Linie im Sinne der Tradition des Parlaments aufzeigt, und ich hoffe, dass Rat und Kommission sich dieser Vision anschließen können.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

  Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la sentenza del 6 ottobre sul cosiddetto safe harbour ha mostrato la fondatezza delle preoccupazioni spesso manifestate in questo Parlamento circa il livello di protezione dei dati personali dei cittadini europei in base all'accordo sul trasferimento di dati dall'Europa agli Stati Uniti.

Come già accaduto in tema di data retention, la Corte ha dovuto supplire alla perdurante difficoltà, se così si può dire, per la Commissione ed il Consiglio di adottare, sulle delicate tematiche della privacy e della protezione dei dati, misure normative e accordi internazionali in linea con la Carta dei diritti. Una difficoltà che occorre superare.

A tal fine la Commissione e il Consiglio dovranno attenersi alle indicazioni della Corte nel negoziare un nuovo accordo con gli Stati Uniti, sostituendo alla logica della pura autoregolamentazione un sistema di sorveglianza più reattivo e proattivo, grazie anche al ruolo da riconoscersi alle nostre Data Protection Authorities, ma dovranno anche dare seguito più energicamente alla risoluzione del Parlamento europeo del 12 marzo 2014 nei suoi molteplici aspetti, senza attendere nuovi interventi della Corte.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η ηλεκτρονική μαζική παρακολούθηση πολιτών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης έχει καταδικαστεί αποφασιστικά από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο με ψήφισμά του τον Μάρτιο του 2014. Ποια ήταν όμως τα πρακτικά αποτελέσματα του ψηφίσματος αυτού; Το βαθύ κράτος στις διάφορες χώρες μέλη της Ένωσης προσπαθεί να νομιμοποιήσει τις πρακτικές μαζικής παρακολούθησης των πολιτών στο όνομα δήθεν της ασφάλειας. Όμως η επιδίωξη της ασφάλειας των πολιτών δεν επιτρέπεται να οδηγεί στην παραβίαση των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων. Δεν επιτρέπεται να οδηγεί στην παραβίαση της ιδιωτικής ζωής και των προσωπικών δεδομένων των πολιτών της Ένωσης. Δεν επιτρέπεται να οδηγεί σε παρακολουθήσεις πολιτών και πολιτικών από τις μυστικές υπηρεσίες της Γερμανίας.

Ταυτόχρονα, η απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου της Ένωσης στην υπόθεση Safe Harbour απέδειξε ότι δεν υπάρχει καμία εγγύηση προστασίας των δεδομένων που διαβιβάζονται στις ΗΠΑ. Πώς θα αποζημιωθούν λοιπόν οι ευρωπαίοι πολίτες; Χρειαζόμαστε νομοθεσία που θα επιβάλλει αυστηρές κυρώσεις σε όσους κάνουν παράνομες παρακολουθήσεις και μηχανισμούς επιδίωξης και επιδίκασης αποζημίωσης για προσβολή προσωπικότητας και ηθική βλάβη.

  Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Madam President, when we are talking about electronic mass surveillance, we live in dangerous times and it is undoubtedly right that counter-terrorism and anti-organised crime agencies do need to be vigilant in the digital world as well as in the real world. Having said that, I am a libertarian at heart and really do not like being spied on by government agencies of any government or any state. My mistrust of the state is magnified to a huge level when it comes to my mistrust of the EU superstate. So please excuse me if I do not place my trust in the EU to protect my personal freedom, as everything in this place is all aimed at, and targeted round, the power of the state over the individual. So when it comes to this kind of thing about mass surveillance and individual rights, I have to ask for leave not to support the EU to do anything. I think I would rather put my trust elsewhere.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Én eredetileg nem akartam felszólalni ebben a vitában, ugyanis annyiszor felszólaltam már Snowden-ügyben, és annyiszor elmondtuk már a lényeget, mit is állapított meg Edward Snowden gyakorlatilag az élete kockáztatásával, hogy nyugati demokráciákban titkosszolgálati eszközökkel figyelik állampolgárok tömegeit, lehallgatják őket, emailjeiket olvassák, gyűjtik róluk az adatokat, hogy aztán az úgynevezett adathalászat módszerével önkényesen, amikor éppen üzleti érdekek, gazdasági érdekek vagy politikai érdekek úgy kívánják, akkor ezeket az adatokat visszaélésszerűen felhasználják.

Miért kértem mégis szót? Az ebédszünetben úgy alakult, hogy a Kovács Béla-ügyről beszélgettem valakivel. Mondtam neki, hogy én még mindig nem tudok napirendre térni afelett, hogy egy választott képviselőt titkosszolgálati eszközökkel négy éven át megfigyeltek, lehallgattak és a többi, és amikor rájöttek, hogy adathalászat ide vagy oda nem tudnak ráhúzni semmilyen bűncselekményt, akkor visszamenőlegesen kreáltak egyet. Biztos úr, Moraes úr! Előfordulhat-e, hogy bennünket, választott európai parlamenti képviselőket titkosszolgálati eszközökkel lehallgatnak? Várom válaszukat, és azt is, hogy ez hogyan lehetséges!

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Madam President, I strongly believe that when giving special powers and capabilities to intelligence services in democratic societies, this should be done in order to protect fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, citizensʼ rights and the fight against internal and external threats, and those powers must be subject to democratic accountability and judicial oversight. Their application should be strictly scrutinised, as otherwise they lose legitimacy and they risk undermining our democracy. I therefore support the request for the Council and the Commission to let us know if they consider EU citizens to be sufficiently protected against electronic mass surveillance. It is of utmost importance that EU citizens know if there is any electronic mass surveillance they are subjected to, and in this case that institutions work together to ensure that citizensʼ fundamental rights are respected.

  Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, cet instrument, ainsi que les ordinateurs, les tablettes et tous les objets communicants peuvent être la meilleure ou la pire des choses. Si je m'en sers pour travailler, m'informer, me cultiver ou donner des nouvelles à ma famille, c'est bien sûr le meilleur, et c'est utile. Si je m'en sers pour organiser un trafic, un attentat ou pour une atteinte à la société et aux personnes, c'est le pire, et c'est détestable. Et bien entendu, toutes les informations de masse qui se trouvent dans ces objets communicants se retrouvent dans le cloud. Comment fait-on pour faire la différence entre le bon grain et l'ivraie?

C'est toute la question de l'équilibre entre sécurité et liberté qui est posée aujourd'hui. C'est une question qui est récurrente et dont nous débattons depuis très longtemps. Je crois que les citoyens eux-mêmes se posent un certain nombre de questions, en fonction de l'actualité, d'ailleurs, et si, aujourd'hui, ils veulent garder leur liberté – et c'est incontournable de mon point de vue – et veulent aussi être protégés, il faut que nous trouvions le moyen de faire en sorte que la technologie rencontre le droit.

  Tim Aker (EFDD). – Madam President, I have heard a lot this afternoon about individual rights, democracy and democratic accountability, but when you look at the record of this place, this Chamber, this Union, they have ignored referendums, they have sought that democratic governments be toppled – and we need only look at the Portuguese election where, as Nigel Farage said, if you had replaced in the Brezhnev doctrine ‘socialist’ with ‘European Union’, it’s the same thing. This place has no right to lecture anyone on any of those principles, because you lot put the interests of the European Union first. You have the euro, which has created mass unemployment. You have the desire for ever closer union, which rejects democracy. You have created the borders crisis. You have no right whatsoever to lecture any of the governments or any of the peoples of this European Union, because if you keep doing that, we will break free. Britain will be free, and after that, many other nations in this Union will be free.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Valóban, a farkasok már az udvarunkban vannak. Szeretném emlékeztetni biztos urat, hogy az én hazámban, Magyarországon, Orbán Viktor kormánya az úgynevezett illegális migránsok elleni fellépés örvén már korábban egy sor, a magyar állampolgárok jogait súlyosan korlátozó, rendőrállam kialakításának irányába mutató intézkedést vezetett be. Most pedig a közrend védelme ürügyén olyan további intézkedéscsomagot jelentett be, amelynek keretében magánszemélyek kommunikációjának szinte korlátlan rendőri ellenőrzését, sőt a teljes lakosságra vonatkozó konkrét bűnüldözési célhoz nem kötött általános arcfelismerő rendszert valósítana meg.

Biztos Úr! Elnök Asszony! Ez van ma az Európai Unió egyik tagországában, és ezt Orbán Viktor ellenzéki szervezetek megfigyelésére használja föl. Ma már emberek tömegei mondják azt, hogy nem hajlandók demonstrációkon részt venni, mert másnap rendőri retorzió éri őket pontosan a tömeges megfigyelés miatt. Ezzel legyenek kedvesek foglalkozni!

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, this was a very necessary and useful debate. I would like to underline that the Commission is taking the issues raised in the draft solution seriously. Where it is within our competence, the Commission is already acting in order to ensure the fundamental rights enshrined in this Charter are fully respected. This comprises a speedy conclusion of the Data Protection reform, as well as various projects under the Digital Market initiative. It also includes a swift response to the Court of Justice judgment on the Commissionʼs Safe Harbour decision in the Max Schrems case. To this effect, I assure you that the Commission is engaged in intensive discussions with our US counterparts. I am confident that we will find the right answers and solutions to ensure an adequate protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter.

  PUHEMIES. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.

Äänestys toimitetaan torstaina 29.10.2015.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, nisam siguran da li je baš point of order, ali imam jednu malu molbu. Može li se provjeriti da li je ova prostorija daleko najhladnija prostorija u Europskom parlamentu? Naime, ovdje vidim nekoliko kolegica koje već imaju maramice. Ja Vas molim kolega, nemojte se smijati jer to je vrlo ozbiljno pitanje, a smiješno je ono što Vi govorite inače. Ja sam zadnji put imao veliki problem i obolio sam zadnji put kad sam bio na plenarnoj sjednici jer sam jedan od onih koji najčešće sjede na plenarnoj sjednici. Molim Vas, pokušajte provjeriti, ova je prostorija daleko najhladnija prostorija u ovoj kući.

  President. – We will contact a technician.

  Tim Aker (EFDD). – Madam President, I dare say my colleague would feel warmer had this place not passed such ridiculous energy legislation that puts bills up.

Kirjalliset lausumat (työjärjestyksen 162 artikla)

  Mireille D'Ornano (ENF), par écrit. – L’ouverture des frontières, l’interconnexion sans limite des réseaux de communication et la massification des données numériques sont à l’origine d’un défaut mondial de régulation. Or le risque serait de croire que nous pouvons contrôler cet espace dominé par les nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication, par des règles de surveillance.

C’est pourtant là la dynamique dramatique et liberticide qui a été empruntée par de nombreux gouvernements que ce soit à des fins politiques, militaires ou économiques. La surveillance de masse est une réalité et rien ne permet de croire pour l’instant, que les États feront marche arrière sur cette question. Car à défaut de pouvoir contrôler les flux de personnes et de pouvoir encadrer l’utilisation des données informatiques à travers le monde, la plupart des gouvernements ont opté pour la formule pré-totalitaire de la fin de la vie privée et de l’espionnage individuel, bientôt légal, hélas.

Je crains de voir ici la dernière crispation d’un monde étrangement mêlé de néolibéralisme et de socialisme autoritaire. Étant attachée aux libertés, je demeurerai intransigeante avec l’intégrité de la vie privée de mes compatriotes.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (PPE), in writing. – This is a topic that has given rise to a lot of debates all over Europe. As AFET co-rapporteur for this resolution, I advocated the necessity to maintain equilibrium in the final text between the two priorities that seem to collide in this situation. I consider that the amendments proposed by the Socialists and the left-wing political groups represent a significant modification of the text in relation to the initial goal. A resolution dedicated to the issue of mass surveillance of European citizens cannot end up by calling for the suspension of the TFTP agreement, TTIP agreement negotiations or the replacement of proprietary software with open-source software in all the EU institutions. There is the justified need of privacy for the 500 million European citizens. And there are the new security threats, from cybernetic war to online recruitment and proselytising by terrorist groups. In the middle lies a reality: the same way the USA needs the EU, the EU needs to have a strong and healthy relation with the United States. These partnerships, despite the inevitable disagreements, give strength to both sides of the Atlantic and are envied by all of those who are promoters of ‘divide et impera’.