DG HOME's explanations to the RSB regarding the changes brought to its CSAM proposal after evaluation and opinions of the Board

Simeon de Brouwer a fait une demande de Accès à l'information à Migration et affaires intérieures

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

La demande est réussie.

Dear Migration and Home Affairs,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents on the CSAM impact assessment and 'better regulation' process'.

DG HOME presented twice to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) its impact assessment for the proposal on CSAM (Fighting child sexual abuse: detection, removal and reporting of illegal content online).
(1) After the RSB expressed a negative opinion the first time, DG HOME redrafted its impact assessment to address the points raised by the RSB. It then submitted its impact assessment a second time. I am requesting documents which were used by DG HOME to explain (internally and to the RSB itself) how each and every of the points raised in the first RSB opinion (points B and C) had been addressed.
(2) The RSB then expressed a positive opinion with reservation. I am requesting documents which were used by DG HOME to explain (internally and to the RSB) how each and every of the points raised by the RSB in its second opinion (points B and C) have been addressed.

I would then like to know whether the second version of the impact assessment has been adapted accordingly before its final publication, based on the RSB reservations (points B and C).

The documents referred to include powerpoint presentations, written submissions (both before and after the RSB hearings), emails, and Word/PDF documents used internally by the unit in charge of the file in DG HOME to list every point for improvement (under points B and C of the RSB opinions) and the changes made in relation to them.
For reference, the two RSB opinions referred to can be found here: https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022...

Please note that, where the complete disclosure of relevant documents is prevented by the exception concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual outlined in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001, because they contain personal data (e.g. name of staff members in tracked-changes and comments to a Word document), I am asking you to redact this personal data by covering it with a black rectangle or similar. I do not need this personal data, however, I do need access to the content of comments made by staff in these documents, if there are any. I fully understand that these comments would not reflect the official position of the EU Commission and could not be quoted as such, but I may need access to them in order to understand better the reasoning behind the changes brought to the impact assessment and the rationale behind some elements of the document.
I also take note that these documents and the comments therein do not reflect the final version of the proposal adopted by the Commission; however, that is not important since what I want to examine is the impact assessment and the "better regulation" process. That process is over, and is distinct from - though obviously relevant for - the legislative process which has now started in the Parliament. I therefore do not think that the disclosure of these documents would seriously undermine the protection of the decision-making process of the Commission. I am working in the Parliament and need those documents to properly do my work and to enable the proper parliamentary oversight work of the MEP for whom I work.

Should you believe that there are grounds for 'refusal' or mere 'partial disclosure' of the above-mentionned documents, let me already assert that that I believe that there is a pressing need for the public to obtain access to these documents. It appears that the legislative process may not have been fully respected. The discussion in the impact assessment of key elements such as the proportionality, the subsidiarity, and the impact on fundamental rights are found to be lacking and incomplete, still at this later stage. The fact that surveillance of communications as later put forward in the legislative proposal conflicts with the principle of "innocence until proven guilty" and with the "general monitoring obligation" is also relevant, given this was raised by the RSB and still stands, in my opinion. Finally, it seems that the legal basis (article 114 TFEU) is not appropriate and is a political choice - no other legal basis can justify the later proposal by the Commission, but this legal basis does not reflect the real intentions behind the legislative proposal as reflected in its title and in its articles (as opposed to the rationale expressed in the impact assessment itself). (3) Should there be communications or documents addressing these points specifically but which would not fall within the scope of the two requests made above (e.g. because not an exchange between the RSB and DG HOME, but rather an exchange with other DGs), I would request that they be added to this access request.

I thank you very much in advance for your work, which I really appreciate. Sorry for the length of this request. For your and my convenience, three disctinct requests can be identified in this request.

My postal address is la Gratiere 10, 7181 Feluy.

Yours faithfully,

Simeon de Brouwer

HOME-ACCESS-DOCUMENTS@ec.europa.eu, Migration et affaires intérieures

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your e-mail of 13 September 2022. We hereby acknowledge receipt of your application for access to documents, which was registered on 14 September 2022 under reference number GESTDEM 2022/5158.

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, your application will be handled within 15 working days. The time limit will expire on 5 October 2022. In case this time limit needs to be extended, you will be informed in due course.

You have lodged your application via a private third-party website, which has no link with any institution of the European Union. Therefore, the European Commission cannot be held accountable for any technical issues or problems linked to the use of this system.

Please note that the private third party running the AsktheEU.org website is responsible and accountable for the processing of your personal data via that website, and not the Commission. For further information on your rights, please refer to the third party’s privacy policy.

We understand that the third party running the AsktheEU.org website usually publishes the content of applicants’ correspondence with the Commission on that website. This includes the personal data that you may have communicated to the Commission (e.g. your private postal address).

Similarly, the third party publishes on that website any reply that the Commission will send to the email address of the applicants generated by the AsktheEU.org website.

If you do not wish that your correspondence with the Commission is published on a private third-party website such as AsktheEU.org, you can provide us with an alternative, private e-mail address for further correspondence. In that case, the Commission will send all future electronic correspondence addressed to you only to that private address, and it will use only that private address to reply to your request. You should still remain responsible to inform the private third-party website about this change of how you wish to communicate with, and receive a reply from, the Commission.

For information on how we process your personal data visit our page Privacy statement – access to documents.

Yours faithfully,
HOME Access to Documents Team

Afficher les sections citées

Simeon de Brouwer

Dear [email address],

The deadline for response was last week, and the file has in the meantime been presented to the Parliament's lead committee. I intended to examine the requested documents ahead of that presentation.
They will still be useful for the work to come, however. Could you tell me how many more days you need to fulfill this request?

Yours sincerely,

Simeon de Brouwer

HOME-NOTIFICATIONS-D4@ec.europa.eu, Migration et affaires intérieures

3 Attachments

Dear applicant,

Please find attached the reply to your request for access to documents
registered under reference GestDem 2022/5158 along with the attachments.

 

Please note, that in light of the Commission’s pledge to become a
paperless administration, unless there is as a particular reason to send a
reply by registered mail, we only send replies by e-mail.

 

We would therefore appreciate if you could confirm receipt of the present
e-mail by replying to [1][email address].

 

Kind regards

Secretariat HOME D4

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]