[PDF] Surveillance by intelligence services: fundamental rights safeguards





Previous PDF Next PDF



Review no. 105

4 déc. 2015 Press Review. 1—15 December 2015. Table of Contents. Pages. Terrorism in Africa. - 12 Myths About Terror in Sub-Saharan Africa.



Review no. 96

10 juill. 2015 L'Union africaine condamne énergiquement l'attentat terroriste au Cameroun ... Egypte : la loi antiterrorisme contre la liberté de la presse.



THE TERRORISM ACTS IN 2015

1 déc. 2016 They were published in March 2016 more than three months ... Legislation Monitor) should be empowered to review not only laws directed ...



The Foreign Fighters Phenomenon in the European Union

1 avr. 2016 Radicalisation to Terrorism and Violent Extremism: Strengthening the ... attacks in Brussels on 22 March 2016 only seem to underscore the ...



Country Reports on Terrorism 2019

16 avr. 2020 Country Reports on Terrorism 2019 provides a detailed review of ... aftermath of the Christchurch terrorist attacks in March the Australian ...



Lone Wolf Terrorism – A Brief Bibliography

2 (March/April 2017): 96-105. Capellan Joel A. “Lone Wolf Terrorist or Deranged Shooter? A Study of Ideological Active Shooter. Events in the US



Review no. 70

10 juin 2014 Press Review. 1—15 June 2014. Table of Contents. Pages. African Union. - Sommet mondial de 2014 sur l'abolition de la violence sexuelle ...



The European Unions Policies on Counter-Terrorism Relevance

1 janv. 2017 in March 2016 the concept of a 'Security Union' was launched as a ... 57 Pantucci



Fear Thy Neighbor: Radicalization and Jihadist Attacks in the West

1 juin 2017 Radicalization leading to terrorism is a multifaceted and com- ... (November 2015 130 victims)



Surveillance by intelligence services: fundamental rights safeguards

25 mai 2018 Press Conference with French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. 24 March 2016. Union in 2016. The commissioner's task is to create.

Surveillance by intelligence services - Volume II: field perspectives and legal update FRA

FREEDOMS

Surveillance by intelligence services:

fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU

Volume II: field perspectives

and legal update Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Photo (cover & inside): © Shutterstock

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa�eu)� Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 FRA - print: ISBN 978-92-9491-766-9 doi:10�2811/15232 TK-04-17-696-EN-C FRA - web: ISBN 978-92-9491-765-2 doi:10�2811/792946 TK-04-17-696-EN-N © European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged�

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union Agency for Fundamental

Rights copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders�

Printed by Imprimerie Centrale in Luxembourg

Neither the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights nor any person acting on behalf of the European Union

Agency for Fundamental Rights is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information.

P ????? ?? ? ????? ??? ???- ?? ????? ??? (PCF)

This report addresses matters related to the respect for private and family life (Article 7), the protection of personal

data (Article 8) and the right to an effective remedy and afair trial (Article 47) falling under Titles II 'Freedoms'

and VI 'Justice' of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Surveillance by intelligence services:

fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EU

Volume II: field perspectives

and legal update fi

Foreword

Intelligence services perform vital work, and the growing threats of terrorism, cyber-attacks and sophisticated criminal

networks have rendered more urgent their efforts to protect our security� Technological advancements have also

made their work more complex, and the transnational nature of today's threats has made it ever more challenging�

But intelligence work to counter these threats, particularly large-scale surveillance, can also interfere with fundamental

rights, especially privacy and data protection� As this report underscores, effective oversight and remedies can help

minimise the risk of such interference�

The report is the second publication addressing a European Parliament request for in-depth research on the impact

of surveillance on fundamental rights� It updates FRA's 2015 legal analysis on the topic and supplements that analysis

with field-based insights gained from extensive interviews with diverse experts in intelligence and related fields,

including its oversight�

With technological advances constantly introducing both new threats and new ways to fight those threats, legislators

have been kept busy� Many of the legislative changes enacted since 2015 have increased transparency� But legal

frameworks remain diverse and, according to some interviewees, too complex and imprecise� Moreover, while

safeguards have in some cases been strengthened, room for improvement remains - particularly in the context of

international intelligence cooperation� Similarly, remedies are available where individuals' rights have been infringed,

but remain inherently limited�

Clarifying the applicable legal requirements, introducing solid safeguards and giving teeth to remedies would all help

ensure that intelligence work is conducted in a rights-compliant manner� This, in turn, would reinforce the credibility

of the information obtained by intelligence services - bolstering trust amongst the public, encouraging effective

cooperation, and - ultimately - strengthening national security�

We are extremely grateful to the key partners and individual experts who took the time to participate in our interviews,

providing invaluable real-life perspectives on the continuing effort to protect fundamental rights and national security�

Michael O'Flaherty

Director

Country codes

Country codeCountry

ATAustria

BEBelgium

BGBulgaria

CYCyprus

CZCzech Republic

DEGermany

DKDenmark

EEEstonia

ELGreece

ESSpain

FIFinland

FRFrance

HRCroatia

HUHungary

IEIreland

ITItaly

LTLithuania

LULuxembourg

LVLatvia

MTMalta

NLNetherlands

PLPoland

PTPortugal

RORomania

SESweden

SKSlovakia

SISlovenia

UKUnited Kingdom

Acronyms and abbreviations

Acronym/

abbreviation

NameEnglish translation

AIVDAlgemene Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst

General Intelligence and Security Service

(theNetherlands) BNDBundesnachrichtendienstFederal Intelligence Service (Germany) BNDGBundesnachrichtendienst GesetzLaw on the Federal Intelligence Service (Germany)

CIVDGerman Federal Intelligence Service

CJEUCourt of Justice of the European Union

CNCTR Commission nationale de contrôle des services de renseignement

National Commission of Control of the

Intelligence Techniques (France)

CNIL

Commission nationale de l'informatique et des

libertés

French Data Protection Authority

COPASIR

Comitato parlamentare per la sicurezza della

Repubblica

Parliamentary Committee for the Intelligence

and Security Services and for State Secret

Control (Italy)

CTIVD

De Commissie van Toezicht op de Inlichtingen- en

Veiligheidsdiensten

Oversight Committee for the Intelligence and

Security Services (the Netherlands)

DGSEDirection générale de la sécurité extérieureGeneral Directorate for External Security (France)

DPAData Protection Authority

ECHREuropean Convention on Human Rights

ECtHREuropean Court of Human Rights

FDNFrench Data Network

GCHQGovernment Communications Headquarters

GDPRGeneral Data Protection Regulation

GISS

General Intelligence and Security Service

(Belgium) IOCCO

Interception of Communications Commissioners

Office

IPAInvestigatory Powers Act

IPCInvestigatory Powers Commissioner

IPTInvestigatory Powers Tribunal

ISCInternet Systems Consortium

NCNDNeither confirm nor deny

OCAMCoordination Unit for Threat Analysis

PKGrParlamentarisches KontrollgremiumParliamentary Control Panel (Germany) PKGrGParlamentarisches Kontrollgremium GesetzParliamentary Control Panel Act (Germany)

PNRPassenger Name Records

QPCQuestion prioritaire de constitutionnalité

Priority preliminary ruling on the issue of

constitutionality (France)

RIPARegulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

SIGINTSignals Intelligence

SINCommission on Security and Integrity Protection

SISSecret Intelligence Service

SIUN

The State Inspection for Defence Intelligence

Operations (Sweden)

SSEURSignals Intelligence Seniors Europe

TETTilsynet med EfterretningstjenesterneDanish Intelligence Oversight Board

Contents

FOREWORD ������������������������������������������������������������������������

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ������������������������������������������������������������������������

FRA OPINIONS ������������������������������������������������������������������������

INTRODUCTION ������������������������������������������������������������������������

PART I: THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTELLIGENCE ������������������������������������������������������������������������

1

Intelligence services in the EU-28: a diverse landscape �����������������������������������������������������������������������

2

Surveillance measures inthedigitalage �����������������������������������������������������������������������

3

Interference with the right torespect for private life ������������������������������������������������������������������������

4

Surveillance "inaccordancewiththe law" �����������������������������������������������������������������������

5

Legality in case of internationalintelligence cooperation �����������������������������������������������������������������������

6

Surveillance for alegitimate aim: need for 'national security' definition(s) ���������������������������������������������������53

PART II: ACCOUNTABILITY? ������������������������������������������������������������������������

7

An imperative: control from within �����������������������������������������������������������������������

8

Oversight framework ofintelligence services �����������������������������������������������������������������������

9

Features of oversight bodies �����������������������������������������������������������������������

10

Stages of intelligence serviceoversight �����������������������������������������������������������������������

11

Oversight of international intelligence cooperation ������������������������������������������������������������������������

PART III: REMEDIES? ������������������������������������������������������������������������

12

The remedial route �����������������������������������������������������������������������

13

Raising individuals' awareness �����������������������������������������������������������������������

14

Remedial bodies' challenges: access to classified information andnecessary expertise ��������������������������129

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS? ������������������������������������������������������������������������

REFERENCES ������������������������������������������������������������������������

INDEXES ������������������������������������������������������������������������

ANNEX ?: DATA COLLECTION AND COVERAGE ������������������������������������������������������������������������

ANNEX ?:

OVERVIEW OF INTELLIGENCE SERVICES IN THE ?? EU MEMBER STATES ����������������������������������������������������� ???

ANNEX ?:

KEY FEATURES OF EXPERT OVERSIGHT BODIES' ANNUAL REPORTS ������������������������������������������������������������ ???

ANNEX ?:

KEY FEATURES OF PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES' REPORTS ������������������������������������������������� ???

Figures and tables

Figure 1:

EU Member States' legal frameworks on surveillance reformed since October 2015 ���������������������������������20

Figure2:

Intelligence cycle in the Netherlands �����������������������������������������������������������������������

Figure3:

Stages of control by ECtHR in the context of surveillance �����������������������������������������������������������������������

Figure4:

Different understandings of 'interference' (EU and US) �����������������������������������������������������������������������

Figure5:

Intelligence services' accountability scheme �����������������������������������������������������������������������

Figure6:

Parliamentary oversight of intelligence services in EUMember States ��������������������������������������������������������66

Figure 7:

DPAs' powers over national intelligence services, by Member State �������������������������������������������������������������81

Figure8:

DPAs' and expert bodies' powers over intelligence techniques, by EUMember State ������������������������������82

Figure9:

Implementing effective remedies: challenges and solutions ������������������������������������������������������������������������

�114

Figure10:

DPAs' remedial competences over intelligence services �����������������������������������������������������������������������

Table1:

Oversight framework: main actors and scope of control �����������������������������������������������������������������������

Table2:

Expert bodies (excluding DPAs) overseeing intelligence services in theEU �������������������������������������������������68

Table3:

Effective oversight: legal standards and views of key actors �����������������������������������������������������������������������

��74

Table4:

Binding authorisation/approval of targeted surveillance measures in the EU-28 ����������������������������������������95

Table5:

Approval/authorisation of general surveillance of communications in France,

Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom �����������������������������������������������������������������������

�97

Table6:

Non-judicial bodies with remedial powers in the context of surveillance, by EUMember State �������������112

Table7:

Non-judicial bodies' remedial powers in case of surveillance, byEUMember State ���������������������������������115

Executive summary

With terrorism, cyber-attacks and organised crime

posing growing threats across the European Union, the work of intelligence services undoubtedly remains vital� Technological advancements have introduced both new threats and means of fighting those threats, meaning such work has also become increasingly complex� In addition, the globalisation of con icts and the transnational nature of threats faced have made international cooperation between intelligence services both more common and indispensable- within and beyond the EU's borders�

Digital surveillance methods serve as important

resources in intelligence efforts, ranging from intercepting communications and metadata to hacking and database mining� But- as the 2013 Snowden revelations underscored- these activities may also seriously interfere with diverse fundamental rights, particularly to privacy and data protection� This report constitutes the second part of aresearch effort triggered by aEuropean Parliament request for in-depth research on the impact of surveillance on fundamental rights� It updates FRA's 2015 legal analysis (Surveillance by intelligence services: fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the EUfi- VolumefiI: Member States' legal frameworks)� In addition, it presents findings from over 70 interviews with experts- conducted largely in 2016- in seven EU Member States:

Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,

Sweden and the United Kingdom� The report focuses on large-scale technical collection of intelligence, referred to as general surveillance of communications�

Intelligence laws remain

diverse and complex

Much has happened since 2015. New threats and new

technology have triggered extensive reforms across several Member States, particularly France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and Finland is in the midst of an overarching reform�

These intelligence law reforms have increased

transparency� Nonetheless, the legal frameworks regulating intelligence work in the EU's 28Member States remain both extremely diverse and complex� International human rights standards require defining the mandate and powers of intelligence services in legislation that is clear, foreseeable and accessible� But experts voiced concerns about apersisting lack of clarity as amajor source of uncertainty� According to both European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and EU law, the mere existence of legislation allowing for surveillance measures constitutes an interference with the right to private life, and European courts consider the collection of data by intelligence services to amount to an interference� Such interference needs to be justified to be human rights compliant�

Targeted surveillance- which applies to concrete

targets based on some form of individualised suspicion- is regulated in some detail by almost all EUMember States� By contrast, only five Member States currently have detailed legislation on general surveillance of communications� Safeguards do limit the potential for abuse, and these have been strengthened in some Member States - though less so in case of foreign-focused surveillance� Similarly, safeguards are generally weaker- and less transparent- in the context of international intelligence cooperation, suggesting aneed for more regulation of such cooperation�

Oversight bodies ensure some

accountability, but room for improvement remains

Various entities oversee the work of intelligence

services across the EU-28, including the judiciary, expert bodies, parliamentary committees and data protection authorities� In afield dominated by secrecy, such oversight is crucial: it helps ensure that intelligence services are held accountable for their actions, and encourages the development of effective internal safeguards within the services�

The judiciary and expert bodies are most commonly

involved in overseeing surveillance measures�

Specialised parliamentary committees generally

focus on assessing governmental strategic policies-

21Member States have set up such committees for this

purpose� Data protection authorities have significant powers over intelligence services in seven Member States, but their powers are limited or non-existent in the rest of the EU- mainly due to an exception for national security matters enshrined in data protection law�

Almost all interviewees from oversight bodies

maintained that they are able to resist external influence, but some lawyers, civil society, and academics questioned both their independence and their effectiveness� Interviewed experts emphasised that full access to all relevant data and information is key to effective oversight- as is the ability to benefit from such access� With oversight bodies largely staffed by legal specialists, the inability to do so sometimes boils down to limited technical capacities� Interviewees Surveillance by intelligence services - Volume II: field perspectives and legal update acknowledged that these pose aproblem- and that the sensitivity of the work can discourage individuals from seeking external expertise� The power to issue binding decisions is also vital� While all EUMember States have at least one independent body in their oversight framework, some lack such decision-making powers� The importance of public scrutiny was also highlighted, with some interviewees deeming insufficiently informative the reports issued by oversight bodies� In addition, the respondents underlined the importance of countering the fragmentation of oversight through cooperation among the various actors involved in the oversight process, both nationally and internationally� FRA's research revealed that oversight of international intelligence cooperation is less fully developed-

17Member States do not require oversight of such

activity, while others limited its scope� Some Member States have introduced safeguards specifically tailored to international intelligence sharing, but only requiring prior approval from the executive has been embraced in significant numbers (27 Member States)�

Towards accessible and

effective remedies The need for secrecy in the intelligence field can affectquotesdbs_dbs27.pdfusesText_33
[PDF] Bi-weekly Press Review 16 – 31 January 2015 - France

[PDF] BI4HR-Flexible Analyse und Reporting von Personaldaten

[PDF] BIA - La circulation aérienne

[PDF] BIA - La résistance de l`Air

[PDF] BIA - Les gouvernes

[PDF] BIA - Les unités aéronautiques - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] BIA - L`atmosphère

[PDF] BIA - L`hélice

[PDF] Bia 4 - Concept Foundation

[PDF] BIA 50 juillet-décembre 2014

[PDF] Bia du 16 octobre 2014 - Les services de l`État en Seine-Saint

[PDF] BIAC Conference Programme 2013 - Canada

[PDF] biactivation de la reaction de sonogashira par la catalyse par - Chimie Organique

[PDF] BIAF CDD fongecif - Anciens Et Réunions

[PDF] Biais et déviance cognitive dans le cas de retrait de sociétés cotées