Union européenne

L’instrument de financement de la coopération au développement améliore le précédent cadre de la coopération au développement de la Communauté en fusionnant les différents instruments géographiques et thématiques en un instrument unique.

Le programme Horizon 2020 vise à renforcer les bases scientifiques et technologiques européennes et à mieux exploiter le potentiel économique et industriel des politiques en matière d'innovation, de recherche et de technologie.

Le programme LIFE est le principal cadre de financement de l’Union européenne (UE) pour les politiques liées à l'environnement et au changement climatique. Il se concentre sur les priorités politiques en matière d’environnement et de climat ainsi que sur les domaines d’action.

Le Fonds Asile, migrations et intégration vise à contribuer à une gestion efficace des flux migratoires et à améliorer la mise en œuvre et le développement de la politique commune de l'Union européenne en matière d'immigration et d'asile.

Dans le cadre de la promotion de la diversité culturelle et linguistique de l'Europe et de sa compétitivité dans les secteurs culturel, audiovisuel et créatif, le programme Europe créative a été lancé pour relever les défis de la fragmentation du marché, de l'ère numérique, de la mondialisation et de la collecte de données.

Le Fonds européen de développement régional a pour objectif de favoriser le développement harmonieux, équilibré et durable de l'Union européenne en réduisant les écarts de développement entre les régions. Il apporte une assistance particulière à la résolution des problèmes rencontrés par les régions naturellement désavantagées (régions insulaires, montagneuses ou peu peuplées) et les régions les plus isolées du fait de leur situation géographique.

Les petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) sont les principaux moteurs de l'économie européenne. L'Union européenne (UE) œuvre à renforcer le soutien aux PME en créant des conditions propices à l’esprit d'entreprise.

Le Fonds européen pour la sécurité intérieure (FSI) pour la période 2014-2020 a pour but de promouvoir la mise en œuvre de la stratégie de sécurité intérieure, la coopération policière et la gestion des frontières extérieures de l'Union. Ce fonds est composé de deux instruments : FSI frontières extérieures, visas et FSI coopération policière, prévention et répression de la criminalité, gestion des crises.

Si la Turquie continue à saper les principes de l'état de droit et à ôter aux membres du Parlement turc leurs immunités, alors elle ne devrait pas s'attendre à se voir accorder un régime européen d'exemption de visa, ont déclaré les députés de la commission des affaires étrangères mardi lors d'un débat avec Selahattin Demirtaş, co-président du Parti démocratique populaire pro-kurde (HDP).
Commission des affaires étrangères

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Les boissons énergisantes et sucrées devraient-elles mentionner sur leurs étiquettes que la caféine permet d’augmenter la capacité de concentration ? La commission de l’environnement craint que ces allégations de santé n’aient un impact négatif sur les jeunes, principaux consommateurs de ce type de produits. Mercredi 15 juin, les députés se pencheront sur une proposition de véto au projet de la Commission européenne d’autoriser ce type d’indications.
Commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

L’écart en faveur du Brexit, la sortie de la Grande-Bretagne de l’Union européenne, se creuse dans les sondages à une dizaine de jours du référendum du 23 juin. Le quotidien populaire et conservateur britannique The Sun, détenu par le magnat des médias australo-américain Rupert Murdoch, a appelé ses lecteurs à se prononcer en faveur du Brexit.

Le ministre des finances néerlandais et Président de l'ECOFIN Jeroen Dijsselbloem craint que la manière dont la Commission européenne applique les règles du Pacte de stabilité et de croissance ne soit pas tout à fait objective, a-t-il dit aux députés de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires mardi.
Commission des affaires économiques et monétaires

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Une échelle claire de A à G identifiant l'efficacité énergétique des appareils ménagers devrait remplacer les proliférant "plus" de la classe supérieure actuelle (A+, A++, A+++) d'ici 5 ans, ont déclaré les membres de la commission de l'industrie, de la recherche et de l'énergie mardi. Ils ont amendé un projet de règlement pour veiller à ce que les consommateurs ne soient pas trompés en pensant qu'un appareil de la classe A+ est l'un des plus efficients sur le marché, alors qu'il ne l'est pas.
Commission de l'industrie, de la recherche et de l'énergie

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Hier en milieu de soirée, un commandant de police a été assassiné devant son domicile, à Magnanville dans les Yvelines. Retranché dans la maison, le meurtrier, qui s'est revendiqué du groupe Etat islamique, a été abattu lors de l'assaut du RAID. La compagne du policier a été retrouvée morte, tandis que leur enfant de 3 ans est sain et sauf. François Hollande a ce matin déclaré qu'il s'agissait d'un acte "incontestablement terroriste". Ce dernier fait suite à l'attentat meurtrier commis à Orlando dans la nuit de samedi à dimanche par un autre djihadiste dans une discothèque fréquentée par la communauté LGBT.

Voici un bilan inédit de l’action de l’Union européenne en matière de politique étrangère. A la fois ample et précis, Maxime Lefebvre sait distinguer l’essentiel de l’accessoire. Il brosse un tableau nuancé et dynamique. Voici un document de référence pour qui veut avoir une vue d’ensemble de la politique étrangère de l’UE. En partenariat avec le Diploweb.com, nous publions un extrait de son article.

Général : Ce mardi 14 juin, les députés de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires et de l’emploi et des affaires sociales se réunissent pour débattre du semestre européen 2016. Ce processus, qui vise à coordonner les politiques économiques et budgétaires des différents États membres, définit des recommandations spécifiques à chaque pays à inclure lors de l’élaboration des budgets nationaux. Celles-ci peuvent avoir un impact sur la fiscalité, le marché du travail ou le régime des retraites.

Source : © Union européenne, 2016 - PE

Over the past two years, the debate concerning the reform of the Dublin Regulation has gained political attention, as the so-called refugee crisis keep has increasingly revealed several flaws in the functionality of the system. This was at the heart of the Commission’s Agenda on Migration and of the European Parliament’s Resolution of 29 April 2015.

More specifically, the main problem lies in the criteria for determining the State responsible for the receipt and the processing of an asylum claim.

On April 6th, the European Commission issued a Communication called “Towards a reform of the Common European Asylum System and enhancing legal avenues to Europe”, which contains several references of the need for reforming the current rules established by the Dublin Regulation.

In this, the European Commission suggested two possible pathways for reforming the Dublin Regulation. The first proposal was similar to one made in September 2015, and introduced a permanent system of emergency relocation, which consisted of a corrective mechanism. However, the criterion of the state of first entry would not have been modified in this case.

The second proposal was more radical because it would decisively change the criterion of the state of first entry, since the responsibility would be allocated on the basis of a so-called “distribution key”, which takes into account certain factors like the size and the wealth of the Member State. This means that, on this basis, asylum seekers would have to be allocated to a Member State when they apply for international protection in the EU according to an evaluation of the economical and social availability of the Member State to. On May 5th the Commission finally came up with a proposal concerning the reform of the Common European Asylum System, which also contained a partial reform of the Dublin System.

In this article, we are going to analyse the main aspects of the final proposal, underscoring the major critical points related to the Dublin rules.

Since its inception, the Dublin system has been concerned with tackling two phenomena related to migration and asylum requests: the so-called “refugee in orbit” and “asylum shopping”. However, it has failed to fulfil its goals, on top of which it has also created several problems for Member States in charge of the control of external borders, notably because of the criteria of allocation of responsibility.

It is important to note that, according to the Dublin III Regulation, the criteria for determining the competent State for the receipt and the treatment of an asylum claim is, in order of priority:

1. The competent State is the State where family members of the asylum seeker regularly reside.
2. The competent State is the State where the asylum seeker has most recently received a visa.
3. The competent State is the one where the asylum seeker has entered the EU for the first time, irregularly or regularly.

As often declared by the Commission, the Dublin rules were not initially conceived for setting up a fair and supportive system. The goal was only to quickly come up with a way to establish the competent State. The lack of fairness and solidarity is one of the main reasons of the failure of the system and the urgent need to recast it.

Indeed, the aim of the Commission’s current proposal is to establish a fairer, more efficient and more sustainable system based on solidarity.

As first Vice-President Timmermans has declared: « We know that people will keep arriving at our borders and ask for asylum, and we will need to make sure those who need protection receive it. Yet we have seen during this crisis how just a few Member States were placed under incredible strain because of the shortcomings of the present system, which was not designed to deal with situations of this kind. There’s simply no way around it: whenever a Member State is overwhelmed, there must be solidarity and a fair sharing of responsibility within the EU. This is what our proposal of today is meant to ensure. »

Similarly, the Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs, Dimitris Avramopoulos, has said: « If the current refugee crisis has shown one thing: it is that the status quo of our Common European Asylum System is not an option. The time has come for a reformed and more equitable system, based on common rules and a fairer sharing of responsibility. With the proposed reform of the Dublin system today we are taking a major step in the right direction and putting in place the European-level structures and tools necessary for a future-proof comprehensive system. We must turn these proposals into reality as swiftly as possible. »

According to the current proposal, the new system will assure transparency and effectiveness, given the following provisions:

– A corrective allocation mechanism (the so-called fairness mechanism) will be able to determine whether a country is handling a disproportionate number of asylum requests. This will be calculated on the basis of a country’s size and wealth. If the number of asylum requests exceeds 150% of the reference number, all further applications will be relocated.

– Shorter time limits for Dublin procedures: this provision will apply to the applicability of the illegal entry criterion and the deadline to send a transfer request. Moreover, the so-called “shift of responsibility” (art 19 Dublin III regulation) will be removed.

These provisions have raised much criticism, most of which is related to the fact that the main criteria have not modified at all. As professor Marcello di Filippo said during a debate in Brussels, “why providing a corrective mechanism instead of changing the main criteria, which is also the principal critical issue about the Dublin system?”

Furthermore, the proposal contains several human rights related issues. First of all, art. 16 of the proposal provides that non-compliance has to be sanctioned, which means that the procedures have to be carried out more quickly and that the asylum seeker is not entitled to the reception conditions according to art. 14 of Directive 2013/33/EU.

Furthermore, the Commission also proposes a limit on the scope of the right of appeal to systemic deficiencies of the system or for family reasons.

Moreover, according to the proposal, these provisions shall be applied to beneficiaries of international protection as well, which would mean a restriction of rights, especially the rights of free movement.

Finally, the proposal envisions that, in case of absence of family members or relatives, the country of first entry is the one in charge of the examination of an asylum request of an unaccompanied minor. This provision is highly problematic with regards to the assessment of the best interest of the child, which should be taken into account before every decision concerning unaccompanied children and minors.

Ultimately, two positive changes can be observed:

– The extension of the definition of family members to siblings and the abolition of the necessity that family has to exist in the country of origin.

– The reduction of the duration of detention to 6 weeks (currently the system allows a maximum of 12 weeks.)

Francesca Rondine

 

For further information:

• European Commission press release:http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1620_en.htm
• Commission’sproposal: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/20160504/dublin_reform_proposal_en.pdf
• Commission’s factsheet: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/background-information/docs/20160504/the_reform_of_the_dublin_system_en.pdf

 

Classé dans:Conditions d'accueil des migrants et réfugiés, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, MIGRATIONS ET ASILE

The first European rule about data protection was a directive enacted in 1995 at the beginning of Internet and the digital market. These new numeric tools always had a real impact on the European citizens’ rights guaranteed by European Treaties. With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) the EU-authorities elaborated the first global measures focused on personal data protection within each member state – in order to let the package to be effective. In parallel complementary measures have been elaborated to support this global regulation across the EU.

Beside this European package, which ensures a strong protection of personal data for European citizens, EU-authorities are negotiating an agreement with the United States focused on the transfer of European data to American companies. This agreement, has been intensely debated as ‘Privacy Shield’ does not provide the same level of data protection that the EU-law does. Furthermore part of EU-authorities – the executive one – agree with this compromise, despite the European Treaties and law.

These legislation movements, instigated by and with the European institutions, are both focused on the same subject – personal data protection – while going in the opposite direction.

An enforced digital strategy across the EU :

The main foreseen steps are the implementation of these new rules inside each EU-member state, along with the elaboration of tools to put it in practice, and the completion of the package by adding two main measures.

The first one is the regulation 45/2001, which is focused on the treatment of personal data by the European institutions, thanks to an independent supervisor, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).The second one is a directive with the purpose to reform the 1995-measures : the e-privacy directive 2002/58/EC, proposed in January by the European Commission to be implemented in mid-2017 as part of the Digital Single Market Strategy. This last still focus on telecommunication farming and has become fundamental as this market is rapidly evolving and the old rules are now obsolete with respect to new digital services.

European authorities want to implement these rules in the same time of the GDPR, which is planned for May 2018, with another directive specifically focused on the police and security services and their skills in the e-privacy area. In this field, the EU-institutions are very careful about the balance between privacy – personal data protection and security since the Snowden scandal and the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) asked for stricter rules.

The EPDS has been implemented in 2004 and provided since then to « ensure that EU institutions and bodies respect people’s right to privacy when processing their personal data ». Giovanni Buttarelli, the EDPS Director, said that the challenge today is to create tools and guidelines for the European legislator and national authorities. This concept of ‘toolkits’ is the key of this digital reform to better equip the European institutions in charge of preparation and supervision of these new measures. Next year, the agenda of the Supervisor will be focused on the GDPR package, specifically to elaborate detailed recommendations to support and facilitate the implementation across the EU-member states. The supervisor will provide advices until the deadline in May 2018: it is short but necessary to support the Single Digital Market and the digital economy. Along with the monitoring of the implementation, he will continue to cooperate with the other European authorities and national governments to prepare the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and substitute it with the Article 29 Working Party (WP29), which is the main element of the reform of data protection. New initiatives focused on data ethic and big data and the consequences of these measures are also studied with respect to the European law in the digital area. Privacy and personal data protection are fundamental rights protected by the articles 7 and 8-2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and article 12 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.

The numeric market requests rules and creates new duties for the EU : thanks to the Supervisor, EU-authorities have a organe which is able to monitoring the EU-policy about data protection, advising on policies that affect e-privacy and cooperating with the other European stakeholders to ensure consistent data protection by recommending resources, communication and evaluation for each digital policy.

The EU-institutions built thereby an independent organ in charge of the digital area and worked with him to create a global numeric policy across the EU – the GDPR – which is attached to increase the personal data protection for European citizens. But at the same time, the executive is also negotiating an agreement with the US focused on the transfer of these data to American companies through the TAFTA (Trans Atlantic Free Trade agreement). This ‘Privacy Shield’ is already less protective than the GDPR.

A lighter regulation with the partners : the cleaving Privacy Shield :

American citizens have not the same guarantees or the same digital rights of Europeans concerning protection of personal data. So the deal involved a compromise between the two parties. The text of the Privacy Shield was accepted by the EU and the US-authorities at the beginning of February 2016, but they are still negotiating because the EU-authorities – specifically the European Parliament – highlighted gaps, which were denounced by the MEPs through their non-legislative resolution of the 26th May. According to the Privacy Shield, data of personal activities as social media or shopping can be sold to American companies and advertisers: everything you do online is registered, and these data can be sold to help them to figure out how to best target potential customers. According to the Law, Each European citizen, should be allowed to choose who can use his informations, who can make money of it and who knows something about him.

The actual negotiations are focused on safeguard of protection of European personal data to respect the European Law. And this is precisely why Europeans and Americans need to negotiate a new agreement: the Privacy Shield “predecessor”, the Safe Harbor, was invalidated by the European Court of Justice the 6th October 2015 because of lacks of security. The new agreement remains not clear, specifically in the part dedicated to privacy protection. It also comprises several other breaches that MEPs showed in their resolution, which could invalidated it just as the Safe Harbor : the Privacy Shield is basically like « a Safe Harbor again ». The main issue remains the difference between the European and the American standards of protection, and what the corporations can do with these data. The Law in the US is more intrusive with the Patriot Act as the Snowden Scandal has showed in 2013.

The Privacy Shield has been « teeny tiny » amended, but two fundamental elements remain sensitive. The first one is the US-government surveillance. A new measure establishes a ‘big change’ with the creation of an ombudsman that can be addressed to obtain detailed informations. But the MEPs have reservations about the independence of the instrument and, furthermore, EU is an area of Freedom, Security and Justice not compatible with the US-mass surveillance. Furthermore, the non legislative resolution passed by the group of MEPs showed that the principles of necessity and proportionality, enforced at the time by the WP29, are not respected, even with the new compromise of the 6-criteria-safeguards (which will be developed later). The members of this Group elaborate guidelines to adapt this key-concepts to the protection of personal data and private life, which are not absolute rights. Three criteria are framing these principles: « in accordance with the law, in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims set out in article 8-2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU » and then the measure have to be « necessary in a democratic society ».

The second issue concerns the commercial sector and what the GAFA (and the other companies) can do with the European data. The new agreement raises « teeny tiny limitations » that do not respect the European law, although privacy is a fundamental right since the Lisbon Treaty.

The Privacy Shield, an exemple of the Realpolitik of the European authorities :

Why did the European Commission agree with these measures and the Privacy Shield despite the European fundamental Treaties? At least for two reasons.

For the European executive a partial and incomplete deal is better than no deal at all. Since the Safe Harbor is illegal, the need of a new data protection transfers agreement to regulate transatlantic data flows is urgent, hence the importance of the Privacy Shield to be implemented quickly: the European Commission wants to see the Privacy Shield implemented within this summer. And this urgence can be explained by the importance of the numeric for the Economy: the digital markets are boosters for the economic growth, fundamental in time of global crisis.

Furthermore, in order to get the same level of protection between the EU and the US, American law needs to be changed, but, of course, the European Commission – and the EU – are not able to pressure enough American authorities to amend the Patriot Act. However, the GAFA and other Silicon Valley’s companies and start-ups are very sensitive and interested in the European digital market. This last is a business target indeed, and surveillance laws promoted by Washington are damaging their business. Together, these companies could have the potential power to pressure American Congress and eventually get an amendment of the Patriot Act – even if the actual terrorism risk decreases the odds.

Another reflection on the Privacy Shield is that while it seems a first step in filling the normative gap, it does not provide a durable solution. In this perspective, the European Commission’s position is a form of Realpolitik, insomuch as the Privacy Shield gets two main improvements over the Safe Harbor.

Firstly, recourses before an American Court are now possible for European citizens. This option remains partial, because the European citizens can access to the American Justice only if the data transmitted to American authorities are made public, but the procedures are complicated and unclear on the possible use of the data. Despite these vague measures, in cases of data protection security breaches an obligation of information of the European citizens is now included. However, in the US the concept of ‘State secret’ is central and with the eaves dropping of the American agencies this last measure could be skirted.

Above all,the Privacy Shield offered a compromise in focusing on mass surveillance of American agencies, based on six criteria: « transfers only to prevent, investigate, detect or prosecute criminal acts, including terrorism, in the framework of police and judicial cooperation ». The goal is here to block the use of European citizens data retrospectively for another purpose, according to the European Commission, which expects these criteria to avoid problems with the unclear recourses rule. These criteria are a complement of an other deal, the ‘Umbrella agreement’, which offers a comprehensive high level data protection framework for EU-US law enforcement cooperation and covers all personal data exchanged between EU-US companies. In March 2016 the Judicial Redress Act has been introduced in the American Congress to implement the Umbrella agreement, also the change seems to be coming, very slowly but it is, because it asks a revision of the US Privacy Act of 1974. However, to ratify that framing across the EU the European Parliament has to agreed, and a majority of the MEPs is still reluctant because the EU-authorities signed this agreement during the meeting with the American negotiators in Amsterdam on the 2nd June.

Towards a global digital regulation across the World ? :

The deadline to implement the Privacy Shield is intended for this summer. This hurry can be explained by an other central issue : terrorism and the cooperation through the digital data. The Umbrella agreement seems a complement of the Passengers Name Record (PNR), while the Swift / TFTP agreement focused on bank transactions.

Furthermore, the Privacy Shield seems to manage more security risks management than a real will to protect personal data and private life. With the GDPR the European authorities showed that personal data protection is still an important issue, which is partly offset by the lacks of the Privacy Shield across the EU. The dissensions between the US and the EU show the real need of a global digital regulation across the international community.

Emmanuelle Gris

To find out more :

• Regulation 45/2001 :

https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/site/mySite/pid/86#regulation

• EDPS Glossary :

https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/EDPS/Dataprotection/Glossary/pid/84

• EDPS Annual Report 2015 :

https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Annualreport/2015/EDPS_Annual_Report_2015_Web_EN.pdf

• European Parliament: resolution on Privacy Shield (May 2016) :

http://www.euractiv.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/05/160524-JMR-Transtatlantic-Data-Flows-1.doc

• Questions and Answers on the EU-US data protection « Umbrella agreement » :

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_fr.htm

• Article 29 Working Party Opinion 01/2014 on the application of necessity and proportionality concepts and data protection within the law enforcement sector
• Adopted on 27 February 2014 :

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp211_en.pdf

Classé dans:DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Protection de la vie privée et des données personnelles

Commission / Royaume-Uni
Sécurité sociale des travailleurs migrants
Le Royaume-Uni peut exiger que les bénéficiaires des allocations familiales et du crédit d’impôt pour enfant disposent d’un droit de séjour dans cet État

Après les incidents impliquant supporters anglais et russes à Marseille, les autorités britanniques ainsi que la fédération anglaise ont tenté de jouer l'apaisement dans la crainte de voir leur équipe exclue de la compétition.