European Union

On 16 July, the Danish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, Troels LUND POULSEN, will present the Danish Presidency priorities to strengthen European defence and sustain military support to Ukraine. This will include finishing the work started with the European Parliament on the European Defence Industry Programme and other new defence-related legislative proposals.
On the same day, the Members will be debriefed by the NATO Deputy Secretary General, Radmila SHEKERINSKA, on the outcome of the recent NATO Summit in The Hague, where historic commitments have been made to increase defence spending and to achieving new capability targets by 2035.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

An increasing number of low-value goods arrive to the EU through online platforms. The European Parliament wants to make sure these items meet EU safety standards.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Wednesday, MEPs stressed that cohesion and agriculture policies must remain strong and distinct in the EU’s long-term budget (MFF), ahead of next week’s Commission proposal.
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Wednesday, MEPs stressed that cohesion and agriculture policies must remain strong and distinct in the EU’s long-term budget (MFF), ahead of next week’s Commission proposal.
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Three reports adopted on Wednesday highlight the urgent need for EU-related reforms, effective use of the Growth Plan and a decisive stance against foreign interference.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Three reports adopted on Wednesday highlight the urgent need for EU-related reforms, effective use of the Growth Plan and a decisive stance against foreign interference.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

In a resolution, MEPs strongly condemn Russia’s ongoing war crimes in Ukraine, expressing firm support for the investigations of the International Criminal Court.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

After decades of democratic progress, MEPs now believe Georgia is a victim of state capture and repeat their calls for new parliamentary elections in the country.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Tuesday, 15 July 2025 in Brussels (room Antall 2Q2), the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) will discuss the priorities of the Danish Presidency of the Council of the European Union (July-December 2025) with Marie Bjerre, Danish Minister for European Affairs.
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Tuesday, 15 July 2025, from 11:00 to 12:30 in Brussels (room Antall 2Q2), the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) will hold a public hearing on the implications of the decisions of the ICJ and ICC on the EU's role in supporting a peaceful solution for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This hearing intends to clarify the overall situation and to provide both legal and political insights in the search for constructive EU positions on the matter.
The experts invited are Gleider Hernández, Professor of Public International Law, KU Leuven and Michael Meier, Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center (GULC) and Associate Fellow. Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
Programme
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

DRAFT REPORT on the EU-US political relations
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Michał Szczerba

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Written by Suzana Elena Anghel,

koya979 / Shutterstock.com

At three recent European Councils (December 2012, December 2013 and June 2015), the Heads of State or government have called for a deepening of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) namely by strengthening its crisis management dimension and further developing civilian and military capabilities. The June 2016 European Council reverted to security and defence policy with particular attention to the strengthening of the relationship with NATO, including on the development of complementary and interoperable defence capabilities.

But what are the achievements? Is there a way of measuring progress made over the past years? Is there a gap between intentions/declarations and deeds? What are the challenges and how to address them?

The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) will address these questions at a roundtable discussion on ‘The European Council and CSDP: success or failure?’ on 27 September 2016, 13h30-15h00, in the European Parliament’s Library main reading room in Brussels. Participants at this roundtable debate are: Elmar Brok MEP, Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, General Jean-Paul Perruche, Former Director-General of the European Union Military Staff, Professor Alexander Mattelaer, Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), and Elena Lazarou, Policy Analyst, EPRS.

Registration
If you do not have an access badge to the European Parliament and are interested in attending the event, it is essential to register by Friday 23 September, using this link.

At the event the EPRS study on ‘The European Council and CSDP: Orientation and Implementation in the field of Crisis Management’ will be presented and discussed. This study assesses the planning, command and control of civilian and military CSDP missions and operations, progress made in developing civilian and military capabilities, particularly rapid response capabilities in the form of the EU Battlegroups, as well as challenges encountered during the force generation process, areas in which the European Council repeatedly called for further progress to be made.

 

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© mrallen / Fotolia

Challenges to security in Europe will take centre stage at the NATO summit in Warsaw on 8-9 July when its heads of state and government will discuss issues ranging from Russia’s conflict with Ukraine and its growing military assertiveness to turmoil across the Middle East and North Africa, and the future of the military alliance.

This note highlights a selection of commentaries, studies and reports by some of the major international think tanks and research institutes on European security and defence published in the run-up to the NATO summit. More reports on the subject can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’ from in November 2015.

NATO summit

NATO Summit 2016: From reassurance to deterrence. What’s really at stake?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, June 2016

The Warsaw summit and the return of Western nationalism
Danish Institute for International Studies, June 2016

Warsaw summit
Atlantic Council, June 2016

NATO Summit 2016: NATO must reaffirm its “open door” policy
Heritage Foundation, June 2016

National priorities for the NATO Warsaw summit
German Marshall Fund, May 2016

NATO defence planning between Wales and Warsaw: Politico-military challenges of a credible assurance against Russia
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2016

What NATO for what threats? Warsaw and beyond
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2015

Preparing for NATO’s Warsaw summit: The challenges of adapting to strategic change
Danish Institute of International Studies, December 2015

Other studies

Restoring the power and purpose of the NATO alliance
Atlantic Council, June 2016

Time to restore conventional deterrence-by-denial
Egmont, June 2016

A new strategy: Implications for CSDP
Clingendael, June 2016

All not quiet on NATO’s eastern front
Carnegie Europe, June 2016

A threat-based strategy for NATO’s southern flank
Carnegie Europe, June 2016

Security in the Baltic Sea Region: Activation of risk potential
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, June 2016

The future of Transatlantic security
Rand, June 2016

Evaluating future U.S. Army force posture in Europe
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, June 2016

NATO must stop crowding Russia
Cato Institute, June 2016

European defence: From strategy to delivery
Clingendael, May 2016

Embedding NATO into the European Union Global Strategy: The missing link?
European, May 2016

Closing NATO’s Baltic gap
International Centre for Defence Studies, May 2016

Russia: A test for Transatlantic unity
Transatlantic Academy, German Marshall Fund, May 2016

A historic reminder, an ever-present dilemma? Assessing Brexit’s potential consequences for European security
European Policy Centre, May 2016

Russian “countermeasures” to NATO are coming
Brookings Institution, May 2016

EUISS yearbook of European security 2016
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

Envisioning European defence: Five futures
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

For a “new realism” in European defense: The five key challenges an EU defense strategy should address
German Marshall Fund, April 2016

A new Helsinki needed? What security model for Europe?
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, April 2016

The parliamentary dimension of defence cooperation
Clingendael, April 2016

European defence spending 2015: The force awakens
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

Do we need an EU army? Which way for the European security and defence cooperation
Mendel European Centre, March 2016

NATO’s guns point the wrong way
Friends of Europe, March 2016

NATO, the US and Baltic Sea security
Swedish Institute of International Affairs, February 2016

The annexation of Crimea: Lessons for European security
Fondation Robert Schuman, February 2016

Ensuring deterrence against Russia: The view from NATO’s front-line States
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, February 2016

Forces terrestres et réassurance: Quelles options pour l’Alliance?
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2016

The defence of Europe before European Defence: Returning to the Schuman method
Fondation Robert Schuman, January 2016

A stronger CSDP: Deepening defence cooperation
Clingendael, January 2016

Defence budgets and cooperation in Europe: Developments, trends and drivers
Istituto Affari Internazionali, Consortium of Think Tanks, January 2016

Reinforcing deterrence on NATO’s Eastern flank: Wargaming the defense of the Baltics
Rand, January 2016

NATO and European security: back to the roots?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2015

The EU, Russia and the quest for a new European security bargain
Clingendael, December 2015

European strategy, European defence and the CSDP
Egmont, November 2015

L’Europe à la croisée des chemins: La politique de défense et de sécurité a besoin d’initiatives franco-allemandes
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2015

Un ressortissant étranger qui n’a pas été intercepte lors du franchissement irrégulier d’une frontière extérieur de ’espace Schengen, ne peut être mis en prison au seul motif de son entrée irrégulière sur le territoire d’un Etat membre. L’affaire est emblématique en raison des protagonistes. L’affaire au principal concerne une ressortissante ghanéenne qui a été interceptée par la police française au point d’entrée du tunnel sous la Manche en tentant de rejoindre le Royaume-Uni à partir de la Belgique.

A ce stade la Conclusion a été présentée par l’avocat généra Maciej Szpunar récemment, le 2 février, sur la base d’une analyse des dispositions du droit français qui prévoient que les ressortissants de pays tiers peuvent être punis d’un peine d’emprisonnement de un an s’ils sont entrés irrégulièrement sur le territoire français et ce à la lumière de la directive 2008/115/CE sur le retour des ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier.

La ressortissante ghanéenne ne disposait pas de ses propres documents d’identité et a été placée en rétention dans l’attente de sa réadmission en Belgique.

La directive européenne qui vient d’être citée ne s’oppose pas en principe à l’emprisonnement d’un migrant et la jurisprudence de la Cour s’est étoffée récemment avec des arrêts précisant dans quelles circonstances cela pouvait être fait ou encore en déterminant les critères permettant l’expulsion immédiate d’un étranger en séjour irrégulier.

L’avocat général a rappelé qu’il existait deux situations qui ouvraient la voie à la possibilité d’emprisonner un migrant en séjour irrégulier. Un Etat membre peut le faire lorsque la procédure de retour établie parla directive a été appliquée et que le ressortissant d’un pays tiers continue à séjourner irrégulièrement sur le territoire de Etat membre sans motif justifié et, deuxième possibilité, lorsque la procédure de retour a té appliquée et que la personne concernée entre de nouveau sur le territoire de l’Etat membre en violation d’une interdiction d’entrée.

L’Avocat général a ainsi déterminé que la directive devait s’appliquer, puisque la ressortissante ghanéenne se trouvait déjà dans l’espace Schengen et qu’elle faisait l’objet d’une procédure de réadmission vers la Belgique et qu’elle était en séjour irrégulier. Toutefois les conditions n’étaient pas remplies pour pouvoir l’emprisonner, car elle ne faisait pas l’objet d’une procédure de retour

Et n’était pas à nouveau entrée sur le territoire français en violation d’une interdiction d’entrée. Le seul motif qu’elle était en séjour irrégulier n’est donc pas suffisant pour l’emprisonner. Même migrant en situation irrégulière on ne peut vous emprisonner d’un claquement de doigt !

Mais comment s’y retrouver dans ce maquis inextricable de lois, règlements de jurisprudences et de situations personnelles, d’histoires individuelles diverses et variées ?

Pour en savoir plus :

     -. Texte d la demande de décision préjudicielle (le français étant la langue de procédure) https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=163052&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1159828

   -. Texte des conclusions https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=174070&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=817894

     -. Communiqué de presse de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-02/cp160009fr.pdf

 

 

 

Classé dans:Conditions d'accueil des migrants et réfugiés, Dignité humaine, Droit à l'intégrité de la personne, Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté, DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Liberté de circulation des personnes, MIGRATIONS ET ASILE

The European Commission is dealing with challenges on another EU-U.S. data sharing deal: the Parliament legal service and MEPs argued that the so-called Umbrella Agreement, which will be brought into being with the signature of the Judicial Redress Act, does not comply with EU law.

On November 2015 the legal service of the European Parliament received a request from Mr. Claude Moraes, Chair of the committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), regarding the “Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation detection and prosecution of criminal offences” also known as the “ EU-U.S. umbrella Agreement”. This accord would put in place a data protection framework for personal data transferred for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses, including terrorism. The European Commission agreed on terms for the ‘Umbrella Agreement’ with the U.S. government on 8 September 2015.

The Commission made the Umbrella Agreement conditional on the U.S. Congress’ passing of the Judicial Redress Act, which will give EU citizens the right to challenge how their data is used in the U.S. courts. The Judicial Redress Act was passed by the U.S. Senate in February 2016.

At a meeting on 15 February, the MEPs of the committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the EP and the Legal Service of the European Parliament presented their opinion on the relationship between the Umbrella agreement and Union law, both as regards its compatibility with primary and secondary European law.

To give his advice the Legal Service was supposed to answer three questions regarding the umbrella agreement, first about the legal nature of the accord and its relation with secondary EU legislation, second whether it could be considered as an adequacy decision, and third regarding the legal status of person who are not EU citizens and whether they are entitled to protection.

Concerning the first question the Legal Service answered that the agreement once properly concluded will be an international accord within the meaning of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), so it will have primacy over secondary legislation such as on the future data protection package. As a consequence, it is important to specify, that international agreements cannot have primacy over secondary EU law if they are in any way incompatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Regarding the second matter, on whether the agreement will constitute an adequacy decision or not, Dominique Moore, the rapporteur of the Legal Service, stated that the agreement does not represent a classic form of adequacy decision, that it falls outside the scope of secondary legislation and that, being its effects already clear, they do not require further adequacy decision. He also explained, on a further comment, that the European Court of Justice has limited jurisdiction over international agreements, while enjoys full powers in the review and eventual annulment or declaration of invalidity of a Commission position.

On the third question Mr. Moore stated that under EU law and in particular under both article 8 of the charter and article 16 of the TFEU “everyone has the right to the protection of personal data”.

Thus, under EU primary law , the right to protection of personal data is granted to everyone and it is not restricted on the basis of residence or citizenship or any other criteria. The situation under the EU-U.S. umbrella agreement, would instead be different. Specifically, as for regards agreement itself, it is important to note that Article 19, labeled « Judicial Redress », provides that certain limited rights of judicial redress shall be made available, subject to certain conditions, only to « any of a Party »

Accordingly, the EU-U.S. Umbrella agreement does not provide that the U.S. will afford rights of judicial redress to natural persons, falling within the scope of EU law, other than EU citizens. This then opens a significant « gap » in the protection of the personal data of individuals covered by EU law which applies to « everyone », when compared with the limited obligations imposed on the U.S. by the EU-U.S. Umbrella agreement .That is why in the opinion of the Legal Service, the proposed agreement would not be compatible with the charter.

Then Mr. Francisco J. Morillo, Deputy Director- General in the DG JUST, took the floor during the LIBE meeting and explained that, in the opinion of the Commission, the agreement will constitute a major success for EU. The agreement establishes indeed a framework that will apply to every transfer in the law enforcement sector made on the basis of future or existing accords or national law.

In addition, it will improve the situation of all EU data subjects except for judicial address avenues, regardless of the nationality or place of residence of the data subject. Furthermore he explained that the Umbrella agreement is an improvement compared to the present situation. The judicial redress act will allow EU citizens to benefit from redress: refusal to grant access to personal data, change data and disclosure to data. The effectiveness will be the core issue. The judicial redress act extends avenues to EU citizens. Nevertheless, this is not the only route of judicial redress.

However Mr. Morillo also specified that the agreement does not grant adequacy to the U.S. and he added it was never the intention of the Commission to make an adequacy finding. Article 5.3 of the draft version of the Umbrella Agreement does not provide a blanket authorization but a presumption of compliance. Paragraph 2 of article 5 clarifies that. The presumption operates on a case by case basis. It is an instrument to complement our legal basis for transfer. It is very different from an adequacy decision, he concluded.

Afterwards Mr. Giovanni Buttarelli, European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) took the floor, and welcomed the efforts of the European Commission to reach, for the first time, a general agreement with the U.S. Nevertheless he emphasized that the crucial challenge was to ensure full compatibility of the agreement with the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular with Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter and Article 16 TFEU. Thus he suggested three essential improvements in order to guarantee the compliance of the accord with the Charter and with Article 16 of the Treaty.

First of all, he said that all the safeguards should apply to all individuals in the EU, not only to EU nationals, because there are specific provisions in the Agreement that regard all individuals – such as the rights to access, rectification and administrative redress. But there are two essential provisions that appear to be limited to citizens of the two parties to the Agreement: namely, the general non-discrimination obligation in Article 4 and the right to judicial redress in Article 19. Mr. Buttarelli added that on these points the EDPS could not afford any ambiguity.

Secondly, Mr. Buttarelli stated that the second EDPS recommendation was to ensure that judicial redress provisions were effective – again within the meaning of the Charter.

Finally, the third EDPS recommendation dealt with transfers of sensitive data. As Buttarelli underlined “I am afraid that Article 13(2) of the Agreement seems to open the possibility of bulk transfers of sensitive data: it refers to the possibility of transfers of personal information « other than in relation to specific cases ». Such transfers would not necessarily mean transfers in bulk, but this possibility cannot be excluded”.

Afterwards many MEP’s casted serious doubts on the transatlantic agreement. Indeed, several MEP’s denounced the agreement for not safeguarding the rights of all EU residents, and contested Mr. Morillo assertion that the text would not lead to an adequacy decision.

Thus, how to reach an agreement on the accord is still not clear.

However, in the meanwhile, on Wednesday 24 February, the American President, Barack Obama signed the Judicial Redress Act, which was adopted by the American Senate in early February and on the occasion of the signing, Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová said:

“I welcome the signature of the Judicial Redress Act by President Obama today. This new law is a historic achievement in our efforts to restore trust in transatlantic data flows. The Judicial Redress Act will ensure that all EU citizens have the right to enforce data protection rights in U.S. courts, as called for in President Juncker’s political guidelines. U.S. citizens already enjoy this right in Europe. The entry into force of the Judicial Redress Act will pave the way for the signature of the EU-U.S. Data Protection Umbrella Agreement. This agreement will guarantee a high level of protection of all personal data, regardless of nationality, when transferred across the Atlantic for law enforcement purposes. It will strengthen privacy, while ensuring legal certainty for transatlantic data exchanges between police and criminal justice authorities. This is crucial to keep Europeans safe through efficient and robust cooperation between the EU and the U.S. in the fight against crime and terrorism. The signature of the Judicial Redress Act by President Obama is a historic achievement in our efforts to restore trust in transatlantic data flows, paving the way to the signature of the EU-U.S. Data Protection Umbrella Agreement.”

Elena Dal Monte

For Further Information:

Image Source:

https://cdt.org/blog/the-eu-us-umbrella-agreement-and-the-judicial-redress-act-small-steps-forward-for-eu-citizens-privacy-rights/

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs – meeting 15/02/2016 (PM)

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160209IPR13553/Committee-on-Civil-Liberties-Justice-and-Home-Affairs

European Commission – Statement

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-401_en.htm

Speech of Giovanni Buttarelli on the EU-U.S. Umbrella Agreement given at Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (LIBE)

https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Speeches/2016/16-02-15_Umbrella_Agreement_LIBE_EN.pdf

Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offences

https://statewatch.org/news/2015/sep/eu-us-umbrella-agreement-full-text.pdf

 

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