European Union

E-waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the EU and less than 40% is recycled. Check out the facts and figures in our infographics.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Kremlin-linked businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin has sued Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and a close ally for defamation, a Moscow court said Tuesday (22 December).

Spain's Senate approved Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's budget for 2021 on Tuesday (22 December), boosting his minority Socialist-led government after years of political instability.

The EU has rejected the latest UK offer on fishing but is ready to pursue a post-Brexit trade deal even beyond the end of the year, diplomats said on Tuesday (22 December).

Jose Manuel Barroso was European Commission president before and after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in December 2009. He discusses how it impacted his work and the broader implications for an expanding European Union.

"Both referenda weren't about the constitution," Guy Verhofstadt says. "In France, it became a referendum on Jacques Chirac. In the Netherlands, it was about whether they paid too much - something some Dutch politicians have been repeating for 10 years."

It might have made sense economically, but the infamous Bolkestein Directive directly foreshadowed later tensions over migrant workers and highlighted social anxieties that became more dominant after the 2009 economic crisis.

Unfortunately, enforced disappearances are continuing to occur around the world and there is an additional risk of states using the pandemic and associated states of emergency as cover for enforced disappearances.

France and Britain will reopen cross-border travel Wednesday (23 December) after a snap 48-hour ban to curb the spread of a new coronavirus variant threatened UK supply chains.

7 December marks the 20th anniversary of the proclamation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Presidents of the EU institutions in 2000. On that day, FRA, in partnership with the European Commission held a virtual conference ‘Reinforcing...

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Adobe Stock

Workers’ interests should always be at the forefront of company approaches to privacy and data protection and worker representatives must always be consulted when a new technology is considered for workplace operations and analytics. This was one of the main conclusions of the study ‘Data subjects, digital surveillance, AI and the future of work’, which was carried out by Professor Phoebe Moore of the University of Leicester at the request of the STOA Panel, following a proposal from Lina Galvez Munoz (S&D, Spain), member of the Panel. This new STOA study provides a timely, in depth overview of the social, political and economic urgencies in identifying what we call the ‘new surveillance workplace’.

A wide range of technologies are gradually being introduced to monitor, track and, ultimately, surveil workers. Workplace surveillance is age-old, but it has become easier and more common, as new technologies enable more varied, pervasive and widespread monitoring practices and have increased employers’ ability to monitor apparently every aspect of workers’ lives. New technological innovations include surveillance cameras and keylogging software on work laptops to biometric sensors and GPS tracking, micro-chip implants, automated video pattern recognition and biometric access control.

Digital transformation, work design experimentation and new technologies are, indeed, overwhelming methods with intensified potential to process personal data in the workplace. New issues are emerging to do with ownership of data, power dynamics of work-related surveillance, usage of data, human resource practices and workplace pressures in ways that cut across all socio-economic classes.

The current pandemic has expanded the use of AI-empowered real-time work place monitoring systems and workforce analytics software that quantifies the previously un-measurable factors for team success, like collaboration and communication that are essential for productivity and performance. During the last few months, workplace monitoring appears to be stress-inducing, demotivating and dehumanising, leading to phenomena of presenteeism, a growing datafication of employment and the blurring of the boundaries between public and private spheres. Such technological practices threaten to alter workplaces in fundamental ways and to undermine trust between employers and employees.

How are institutions responding to the widespread uptake of new tracking technologies in workplaces, from the office, to the contact centre, to the factory? What are the parameters to protect the privacy and other rights of workers, given the unprecedented and ever-pervasive functions of monitoring technologies? The report evidences how and where new technologies are being implemented; looks at the impact that surveillance workplaces are having on the employment relationship and on workers themselves at the psychosocial level; and outlines the social, legal and institutional frameworks within which this is occurring, across the EU and beyond, ultimately arguing that more worker representation is necessary to protect the data rights of workers.

The study carries out a thorough analysis of automated decision-making, considering the extent to which it is admissible, the safeguard measures to be adopted, and whether data subjects have a right to individual explanations. It then considers the extent to which the General Date Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for a preventive risk-based approach, focused on data protection by design and by default. In adopting an interdisciplinary perspective, the study identifies all major tensions between the traditional data protection principles — purpose limitation, data minimisation, special treatment of ‘sensitive data’, limitations on automated decisions — and the full deployment of the power of AI and big data. The vague and open-ended GDPR prescriptions are analysed in detail regarding the development of AI and big data applications. The analysis sheds light on the limited guidance offered by the GDPR on how to balance competing interests, which aggravates the uncertainties associated with the novel and complex character of new and emerging AI applications. As a result of this limited guidance, controllers are expected to manage risks amidst significant uncertainties about the requirements for compliance and under the threat of heavy sanctions.

It should be noted that the author makes several interesting findings, including the rapid increase of employees’ stress and anxiety as well as the augmented accuracy of tracking and monitoring technologies, but also the marginal role that the concept of consent and the workers’ representatives has so far exerted in the frame of the relevant technological and policy debates. The study’s added value lies not only in the detailed legal analysis but also in its methodological rigour: its findings are based on a wide range of country case studies and ‘worker cameos’ that are based on semi-structured interviews carried out with a series of workers to identify where electronic performance monitoring (EPM) and tracking are occurring. The study then proposes a wide range of concrete and applicable policy options about how to ensure union/worker involvement at all stages, how to introduce and enforce co-determination into labour law in all EU Member States, how to require businesses to compile certification and codes of conduct and how to prioritise collective governance. The study emphasises the need to guarantee worker representatives’ involvement at each increment of the life cycle of any technological tracking procedure and for EU states to establish co-determination rights in a firm manner. The author’s proposal concerning full inclusion – beyond trade unions – of employer associations in writing codes of conduct for data tracking and processing activities as partners is of practical importance. The arguments and findings of the study offer both theoretical insight and practical suggestions for action that policy-makers will hopefully find stimulating and worth pursuing.

Read the full report and accompanying STOA Options Brief to find out more. You can also watch the video of the presentation of interim findings to the STOA Panel.

Report on the functioning of the General Court of the European Union

Stakeholders, researchers, and policymakers are seeking to find the right place for innovation in the EU's new flagship food policy with a view to empower consumers to make the best choices for themselves and the planet.

The families of the victims of a deadly plane crash lodged a complaint with the EU’s aviation safety regulator on Tuesday (22 December), which is due to give the Boeing MAX aircraft permission to return to the sky in January.

In light of the difficult political context Europe is facing, with COVID-19, Brexit, US tariffs, and trade tensions, more thought should be put into different models of agriculture to address future challenges, the right-wing MEP Mazaly Aguilar (ECR) told EURACTIV in an interview.

Hon. Tara Rivers, MP, Minister of Financial Services and Home Affairs in the Cayman Islands Government, shares her view on the relationship between the EU and the Cayman Islands.

Norway's Supreme Court struck down a challenge from environmental groups trying to stop oil exploration in the Arctic, after a historic battle over the country's climate change commitments on Tuesday (22 December).

Written by Mihalis Kritikos,

© Adobe Stock

Asking passengers to complete a passenger locator form (PLF) prior to their flights has been seen in recent months as an efficient way to help public health authorities trace travellers potentially exposed to Covid-19 in airports and ports and at other border check points. This digital identification form, which has increasingly been viewed as an essential travel document, could become a key health measure in the context of contact tracing and targeted testing, helping Member States perform risk assessments of arrivals. The accelerating use of this hybrid contact-tracing system in several European airports raises issues of transparency, accountability and privacy that need to be addressed in an efficient and responsible manner.

Several Member States have developed a screening procedure that allows them both to perform targeted testing and strengthen their contact-tracing efforts. According to this procedure, travellers are obliged to fill out a form online at least 24 hours before entering the country. This standardised form has been developed jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The form contains essential location information about the traveller’s visit including personal and travel details, such as their country of origin and the countries they have visited in the last 15 days, the accommodation they will stay in and their family status. Once the PLF is completed, the details of the tracking form are processed by special software for the creation of risk profiles and the categorisation of travellers. Data are evaluated by machine-learning algorithms that produce a unique quick response (QR) code. This code is sent to the passenger, who shows it either in print or on their smartphone upon their arrival in the country. The availability of machine learning as a special kind of artificial intelligence (AI) application is essential for the widespread and effective use of PLFs.

The availability of passenger locator data is crucial for the success and effectiveness of contact-tracing operations and the strengthening of countries’ capacity to combat Covid-19 at points of entry. The ICAO Guidelines for States concerning the management of communicable disease posing a serious public health risk state that the PLF ‘provides an appropriate method of rapidly collecting traveller contact information’. In comparison to other contact-tracing methods and static controls, the main advantage of this screening model lies in its capacity to facilitate targeted screening of travellers at borders and analyse real-time data to allocate resources. The selection of who should be tested is based on an algorithmic analysis of the data contained in the PLFs. This AI-based system should take into account, for instance, the passenger’s risk profile, the number of tests available and Covid-19 hospital beds available, the number of flights arriving and the epidemiological situation and transmission patterns in the country of departure.

What are the main advantages of this newly introduced system compared with other contact-tracing applications? Can countries rely on this particular system to control the spread of the disease despite the technical limitations? Does this sampling tool deter people from travelling abroad or even strike the right balance between the need to restore economic activities while protecting the health of passengers and local people alike? What kind of legal safeguards are needed for the responsible deployment of this screening tool, whose operation is based on the processing of travellers’ data by newly formed algorithmic models?

Potential impacts and developments

Several EU countries have recently introduced targeted Covid-19 testing of foreign travellers arriving at their borders. The form is currently required in most EU countries. Greece was the first country to use dynamic machine-learning algorithms to create a real-time dashboard to organise its diagnostic testing system at its borders. This is done through an AI system called EVA, which uses real-time data and optimisation techniques to perform risk predictions and allocate testing resources within the framework of Greece’s current Covid-19 screening capacity. Given the limited laboratory testing capacity of several airports, the lack of available large-scale testing kits and of health providers who could administer the tests and validate the results within a limited time-frame, this smart processing of PLFs may facilitate efficient resource management. The screening system can also supplement traditional contact-tracing procedures, as the data contained in the form can help authorities trace the contacts of all travellers, should a fellow passenger be confirmed as having tested positive for Covid-19.

At the same time, the processing of the data contained in PLFs raises several issues about their compliance with the relevant data protection standards and whether and how informed consent requirements can be met given that it is mandatory to complete this form when travelling to certain countries. In addition to the challenges associated with the management of huge quantities of travellers’ data, the efficiency of the PLF system may be undermined by incorrect phone numbers and other false or inaccurate information provided by travellers. How can travellers who provide inaccurate contact details be traced? Furthermore, the performance of targeted testing on the basis of data collected and processed using algorithmic models that are still under development carries the risk of errors. This could, for instance, pose the risk of public identification or stigmatisation of confirmed or suspected individuals. Finally, the usefulness of the system’s deployment from a public health perspective will depend not only on its actual technical effectiveness but also on whether its use can be combined with efficient diagnostic tests, other contact-tracing tools and comprehensive monitoring schemes.

Anticipatory policy-making

Public health authorities should collect and process the personal data from the PLFs for targeted testing in accordance with Regulation 2016/679, and the privacy framework and recommendation on health data governance of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has issued Considerations relating to passenger locator data, entry and exit screening and health declarations and proposes collecting a minimum data set, the rest of the data to be obtained during the contact-tracing interview. As United Nations experts have stressed, ’emergency responses to the coronavirus must be proportionate, necessary and non-discriminatory’. The proportionate use of location data should consider the medical relevance of the data collected and safeguard its effective anonymisation and storage limitation, so as to prevent accidental disclosure of names of possibly infected persons.

Given the transnational nature of this public health emergency, as passengers travel across Europe, the data contained in PLFs and the results of testing and contact-tracing efforts could be collected in a common European database. Τhe Joint European roadmap towards lifting Covid-19 containment measures recognises that coordinated action between Member States should include actions to gather harmonised data, harmonise protocols, and share reference standards. The Commission’s recommendation on a common Union toolbox for the use of technology and data to combat the Covid-19 crisis strongly advocates the development of a common methodology on monitoring and sharing assessments of the effectiveness of contact-tracing applications. The European Commission recently announced that it is preparing, in collaboration with EASA and the EU Healthy Gateways joint action, to launch a common EU digital PLF as one of a number of measures to facilitate safe travel in the post-Covid-19 era, to be available by the end of 202010 January 2021. EU-wide initiatives may enhance the overall efficacy of the PLF system as an EU screening tool and minimise possible overlaps and inconsistencies.

However, the gradual deployment of this tool in European airports should be treated with caution given the limited scientific knowledge and technical experience in relation to the effectiveness, thoroughness and credibility of algorithmic decision-making systems of this kind. Τhere are questions about the type and quality of data used for the development and operation of the algorithms, and the rigour of the testing and operational protocols used for their design and deployment. Thus, there is an immediate need for algorithmic impact assessments to improve the quality, explainability and transparency of these screening procedures. As decisions about who should get tested in an airport are important from both public health and privacy perspectives, contact-tracing and targeted testing based on PLFs should be subject to thorough validation and accountability requirements so as to gain public trust and acceptance. Last but not least, the deployment of this screening system should remain part of a wider public health emergency response that needs to consider the essential nature of air travel in the context of Covid-19 and be constantly monitored by public health and data protection authorities alike given the novelty of the technology being used.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘What if AI-powered passenger locator forms could help stop the spread of Covid-19?‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

The new strain of Sars-CoV-2, which is reportedly up to 70 percent more contagious, has spread from the south of England to at least five other countries. More than 40 states have banned all traffic to and from the UK and supply chains have broken down. Europe's media debate what needs to be done at the political level, but also point to opportunities.