Месечни архиви: декември 2019

Understanding the Sustainable Development Goals

Written by Marta Latek and Eric Pichon,

© United Nations

In 2015, the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be attained by 2030, as a follow-up to the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) and the Rio+20 Summit (2012). Unlike their predecessors, the SDGs commit both developed and developing countries, and embrace the economic, environmental and social aspects of development. The SDGs and the broader 2030 Agenda for sustainable development of which they form the core, are based on the findings that human activities have triggered dramatic changes in the conditions on Earth (climate change and biodiversity loss), which in turn have contributed to the deterioration of human well‑being. To reverse the trend, there is an urgent need to simultaneously address the multiple causes and consequences of environmental depletion and social inequalities, by developing synergies and managing trade-offs between the SDGs.

Challenges in pursuing the SDGs include the fact that countries do not necessarily have an equal start and, even more importantly, that regardless of their stage of development, they can no longer afford to apply the current development model, where production and consumption happen at the expense of natural resources. According to many observers, such a model creates unsolvable tensions between SDGs, notably between the safeguarding of natural resources and the aspirations for improved well-being. The structural transformation that would bring about the desired change requires a joint effort by the international community, but equally so by natural and public or private legal persons, to urgently speed up the process. The European Union has been a leader in drafting and implementing the SDGs; however, the European Parliament considers the EU could go further in devising a common SDG strategy.

Read this briefing on ‘Understanding the Sustainable Development Goals‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/16/understanding-the-sustainable-development-goals/

Enhancing EU competitiveness [What Think Tanks are thinking]

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© Daniel Berkmann / Fotolia

© Daniel Berkmann / Fotolia

The European Union has been established as an area of security, stability and prosperity, in which economic competitiveness plays a key role. Although in terms of productivity some EU countries are doing well, compared to, for example, the United States, the EU is lagging behind some other world regions in reaping the fruits of the digital revolution. Analysts also point to the need to continue euro-area governance reforms, completing the Banking Union and pushing ahead with the creation of the Capital Markets Union. A debate continues about whether the EU should support the creation of EU industrial champions, which advocates claim could be well placed to compete internationally in some sectors.

This note brings together commentaries, analyses and studies by international think tanks and research institutes on EU competitiveness and related issues. Earlier papers on reforming the euro area are available in a previous issue from the series, published in December 2019.

Manufacturing employment, international trade, and China
Bruegel, November 2019

A primer on developing European public goods: A report to ministers Bruno Le Maire and Olaf Scholz
Bruegel, November 2019

The single market remains the decisive power of the EU
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2019

A geographically fair EU industrial strategy
European Policy Centre, October 2019

Beyond industrial policy: Why Europe needs a new growth strategy
Jacques Delors Institute, October 2019

Comment combattre la prochaine récession?
Terra Nova, October 2019

The 2019 future of work index: How the world of work is changing – and how policy needs to change with it
Lisbon Council, October 2019

Labour market and social policy
Centre for European Policy Studies, October 2019

Structural change, institutions and the dynamics of labor productivity in Europe
German Marshall Fund, October 2019

Economic polarisation in Europe: Causes and options for action
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, September 2019

Holding together what belongs together: A strategy to counteract economic polarisation in Europe
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, September 2019

Tax law and the transfer of start-up losses: A European overview and categorization
ZEW, September 2019

Public investment a key prerequisite for private sector activity
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, August 2019

Machine politics: Europe and the AI revolution
European Council on Foreign Relations, July 2019

Making the Single Market work: Launching a 2022 masterplan for Europe
European Policy Centre, July 2019

Facing the crisis: Rethinking economics for the age of environmental breakdown
Institute for Public Policy Research, July 2019

Wirtschaftliche Polarisierung in Europa: Ursachen und Handlungsoptionen
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, July 2019

The European Union energy transition: Key priorities for the next five years
Bruegel, July 2019

Redefining Europe’s economic sovereignty
Bruegel, June 2019

Tech giants in banking: The implications of a new market power
Istituto Affari Internazionali, June 2019

Cross border services in the internal market: An important contribution to economic and social cohesion
Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, June 2019

Assessing Europe’s space dependency and its implications
Institut français des relations internationales, June 2019

European economic democracy: A new path out of the crisis
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, June 2019

Rebranding capital markets union: A market finance action plan
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2019

The opportunities of the modernisation fund for the energy transition in Central and Eastern Europe
Centre for European Policy Studies, June 2019

The future of work? Work of the future! On how artificial intelligence, robotics and automation are transforming jobs and the economy in Europe
European Political Strategy Centre, May 2019

EU energy system transformation: The agenda for the next Commission
E3G, May 2019

How to improve European Union cohesion policy for the next decade
Bruegel, May 2019

Europe’s sustainability puzzle: Broadening the debate
European Political Strategy Centre, May 2019

Promoting sustainable and inclusive growth and convergence in the European Union
Bruegel, April 2019

Infrastructure for growth: How to finance, develop, and protect it
Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, April 2019

Do data policy restrictions impact the productivity performance of firms and industries?
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute, April 2019

The impact of labour market institutions and capital accumulation on unemployment: Evidence from the OECD, 1985-2013
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, April 2019

Posted workers regulations as a cohesion test in the enlarged EU
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Institute of Public Affairs, April 2019

EU mobile workers: A challenge to public finance?
Centre for European Policy Studies, April 2019

Strategic dimensions of the energy transition: Challenges and responses for France, Germany and the European Union
Institut français des relations internationales, April 2019

Mobilités propres: La voie européenne
Notre Europe, April 2019

Standing up for competition: Market concentration, regulation, and Europe’s quest for a new industrial policy
European Centre for International Political Economy, March 2019

EU industrial policy after Siemens-Alstom: Finding a new balance between openness and protection
European Political Strategy Centre, March 2019

Effect of public procurement regulation on competition and cost-effectiveness
Robert Schuman Centre, European University Institute, March 2019

Escaping the startup trap: Can policymakers help small companies grow to major employers?
Progressive Policy Institute, February 2019

Artificial Intelligence: Ethics, governance and policy challenges
Centre for European Policy Studies, February 2019

How are you doing, Europe? Mapping social imbalances in the EU
Jacques Delors Institute, Bertelsmann Stiftung, February 2019

European innovation partnerships: How successful have they been in promoting innovation in the EU?
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, January 2019

Science, technology and innovation diplomacy: A way forward for Europe
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Institute for European Studies, January 2019

Innovate Europe: Competing for global innovation leadership
World Economic Forum, January 2019

Vertical restraints and e-commerce
Bruegel, January 2019

The challenge of moving to a common consolidated corporate tax base in the EU
Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln, January 2019

Europe needs reforms for inclusive growth. Do Europeans agree?
LUISS School of European Political Economy, January 2019

Europe’s growth starlets: Wages and productivity in 4 export-oriented economies
Jacques Delors Institute, December 2018

Eco-innovation: Drivers, barriers and effects – A European perspective
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, December 2018

Which structural reforms does E(M)U need to function properly?
Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche, December 2018

Réforme de l’Union économique et monétaire: Quelle dimension sociale?
Notre Europe, February 2019

Read this briefing on ‘Enhancing EU competitiveness‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/13/enhancing-eu-competitiveness-what-think-tanks-are-thinking/

European Parliament Plenary Session December II 2019

Written by Clare Ferguson,

Autumn season - the European Parliament in Strasbourg - Ill riverParliament’s calendar has been a little unusual this year – with European elections and the delayed installation of the new European Commission. This month saw Members sitting in an extraordinary session on a subject of urgent importance: how the European Union (EU) will tackle the climate emergency, declared by Parliament on 29 November 2019. That session, on 11 December, saw the new Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, and Vice-President Frans Timmermans present their freshly adopted plans for a new European Green Deal, proposing to invest record amounts of public funds in advanced research and innovation, complemented by a strategy for green financing and a Sustainable Europe Investment Plan, all aimed at making Europe the first climate-neutral continent.

Moving on to the agenda for the main December plenary session … Parliament will award its 2019 Sakharov Prize to laureate Ilham Tohti on Wednesday lunchtime. The European Parliament is committed to defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the award highlights those who stand up for the right to freedom of expression, safeguard minority rights or champion international law, and democracy. Currently imprisoned by the Chinese government, Ilham Tohti is a moderate advocate of Uyghur minority rights who eschews radical separatist movements in favour of dialogue with the Han majority. Parliament’s President has urged the Chinese government to release Tohti, and called for China to respect minority population rights, particularly in the light of the ‘China-cables’ exposé of Chinese treatment of the Uyghur. The new Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the EU, former EP President Josep Borrell, will make a statement on the Uyghur situation on Wednesday afternoon. During this session, Parliament will also commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Lisbon Treaty and that of the Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming legally binding, on Wednesday morning, as well as hearing about the conclusions of the latest meeting of the European Council – an institution that has evolved considerably since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force.

Millions of European farmers stand to lose out when their EU income support ends in 2020, due to the lack of an agreement on the 2021-2027 EU budget and on the important reform of the common agricultural policy. Time is therefore pressing to ensure the stability of EU farmer income support post-2020. While there is broad agreement that interim measures are necessary, the EU still needs to put transitional provisions in place to bridge the gap. Parliament’s Budgets and Agriculture Committees agree that those who benefit from EU funding should not suffer harm because of the procedural delays, and have not proposed any amendments to the Commission’s proposal. Parliament will therefore vote on Wednesday lunchtime on its first-reading position on that proposal to agree a package of technical amendments to the regulations on EU financial discipline and flexibility between pillars and voluntary coupled support.

Parliament’s Committee on Petitions (PETI) recently held hearings of the five candidates for the position. The Ombudsman’s office represents citizens and others who wish to lodge complaints regarding the actions of EU administrative bodies, thereby ensuring that EU institutions respect citizens’ rights and the principles of good administration. Members will take part in the election of the European Ombudsman on Tuesday lunchtime, when the successful candidate needs to secure a majority of votes cast in a secret ballot (with subsequent rounds of voting planned for Wednesday if there is no clear winner).

If you’ve been doing some festive shopping lately, the chances are you have purchased gifts online, possibly in another country. E-commerce is booming, and while it offers opportunities to increase cross-border sales, the EU is keen to avoid that it also allows increased tax fraud. Tackling VAT fraud related to e-commerce therefore requires robust systems for the transmission and exchange of VAT-relevant payment data (such as who is supplying the goods). The European Parliament is consulted on two European Commission proposals (on maintaining and exchanging electronic payment records), and a joint debate on Monday afternoon will consider the corresponding Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) reports.

An important element of maintaining biodiversity is ensuring that fisheries worldwide are sustainable. Parliament’s Committees on Fisheries (PECH) and Budgets (BUDG) are in favour of concluding a new EU fisheries agreement with The Gambia aimed at doing just this, including a proposed annual EU contribution of €550 000. Half of this amount covers access rights for EU fishing vessels to Gambian waters and half should assist The Gambia to develop its fisheries sector in a sustainable manner, including preventing illegal fishing. The file is scheduled for vote on Wednesday lunchtime.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/13/european-parliament-plenary-session-december-ii-2019/

‘EU institutional dynamics: Ten years after the Lisbon Treaty’

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Fernando Hortal Foronda

EPRS- FMA - DG COMM roundtable discussion - EU institutional dynamics : Ten years after the Lisbon Treaty

© European Union – EP, 2019

The European Council Oversight (ECOS) team from the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) recently organised an event on ‘EU institutional dynamics: Ten years after the Lisbon Treaty’ in the House of European history, in cooperation with the association of former members of the European Parliament (FMA) and Parliament’s Communications Directorate-General. Opening the event on 10 December 2019, Parliament Vice-President Mairead McGuinness (EPP, Ireland) highlighted the importance of the Lisbon Treaty for national parliaments and inter-religious dialogue and stressed the need to overcome the ‘silo mentality’ that persists between European policy areas, as well as the need to further improve interinstitutional cooperation.

The event, moderated by Jacki Davis, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, took the form of two roundtable debates. In the first session – opened by EP Vice-President Othmar Karas – former EP President Enrique Barón Crespo, Secretary General of the European University Institute Vincenzo Grassi, and Danuta Hübner (EPP, Poland), discussed the evolution of the European Parliament’s power and the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on Parliament’s role as an institution. Enrique Barón Crespo recalled the significance of the Lisbon Treaty regarding the now compulsory character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and Danuta Hübner underlined that many areas of the Lisbon Treaty have not yet been used to their full potential, such as the ‘passerelle’ clauses.

The second round table discussed the institutional dynamics and impact to date of the European Council. Following opening remarks from former EP President Hans-Gert Pöttering, the European Council’s first President Herman van Rompuy (2009-2014) gave a keynote speech on his experience as EUCO President in the midst of the eurozone crisis. Secretary-General of the Council, Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen then addressed recent and future European Council developments and notably mentioned the Bratislava Declaration, the Leaders’ Agenda and the Strategic Agenda 2019-2024. Together with the other panellists, Former Member Ana Gomes, and Desmond Dinan, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, the panel discussed whether the activities of the European Council had effectively had an impact on policy outcomes. All participants agreed on the importance of the planned conference on the future of Europe, while advocating that the focus should lie on concrete policy achievements, rather than on treaty revision, as the current institutional framework provides the necessary instruments to deliver on Europeans’ demands. Closing the discussion, former Member Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl recalled the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, namely to strengthen the community method, stressing that the last 10 years have witnessed a power shift towards the European Council.

To accompany the event, EPRS European Council Oversight Unit (ECOS) Policy Analysts Suzana Elena Anghel and Ralf Drachenberg published a study on ‘The European Council under the Lisbon Treaty: How has the institution evolved since 2009?‘.

To watch the discussion: https://www.facebook.com/EuroparlFMA/

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/13/eu-institutional-dynamics-ten-years-after-the-lisbon-treaty/

Introduction to the European Semester: Coordinating and monitoring economic and fiscal policies in the EU

Written by Angelos Delivorias and Christian Scheinert,

© Giulio Benzina / Shutterstock

© Giulio Benzina / Shutterstock

In response to the financial and economic crisis, the European Union introduced a series of changes to its institutional architecture for economic and social governance, with the aim of achieving more integrated fiscal and economic coordination. At the heart of this new architecture is the ‘European Semester’, a process of socio-economic policy coordination that lasts from November until July each year, in which Member States discuss their economic reform and budget plans before adopting them, while the European institutions monitor progress and address recommendations at specific times throughout the year.

At the centre of the European Semester are three separate processes that work in parallel: fiscal surveillance based mainly on the stability and growth pact (SGP); surveillance of macroeconomic policies, under the macroeconomic imbalance procedure (MIP); and coordination of EU countries’ economic and employment policies, based on the integrated guidelines (in other words, the broad economic policy guidelines (BEPGs), together with the employment guidelines).

The Semester officially starts every November with the publication of the Annual Growth Survey and the Alert Mechanism Report (along with other documents) by the European Commission. Another ‘milestone’ is in February, when the country reports and (when required) in-depth reviews are published for Member States. In April, the Member States publish their stability or convergence programmes. In May comes another milestone, with the publication of the country-specific recommendations.

After July, the ‘European’ Semester, is followed by a ‘National’ Semester, where Member States incorporate what has been discussed and recommended at European level into their national draft budgets, which are then debated and adopted during the autumn.

During its limited existence, the Semester has been debated and examined by academics and institutions alike. The main points of discussion relate to parliamentary involvement in the Semester (notably linked to broader issues of legitimacy and accountability of the wider framework of economic governance), the country-specific recommendations and their declining level of implementation, as well as the role that the regions could play in the context of the Semester.

This overview touches on the latest factors that could have an impact on the process: the priorities that the new European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, has addressed to Commissioners Paolo Gentiloni and Valdis Dombrovskis in her mission letters. While those priorities were articulated very succinctly, they could provide a useful idea of how the Semester might evolve over the new Commission’s term.

Read this ‘in-depth analysis’ on ‘Introduction to the European Semester: Coordinating and monitoring economic and fiscal policies in the EU‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/12/introduction-to-the-european-semester-coordinating-and-monitoring-economic-and-fiscal-policies-in-the-eu/

EU right to be forgotten

Written by Tambiama Madiega with Anna Meriel Nichols,


Privacy policy word cloud concept

© ibreakstock / Fotolia

The ‘right to be forgotten’ (or ‘dereferencing‘) refers to the fact that residents in the European Union (EU) can request that information about them, which appears when searching for their name on the internet, be delisted and therefore made inaccessible.

In the EU, the ‘right to be forgotten’ was first articulated in the 2014 Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos case brought before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), applicable since 25 May 2018, enshrines a ‘right to erasure’ in EU law, which encompasses the ‘right to be forgotten’. On this basis, people living in the EU now routinely ask search engines like Google to take down links to their personal information.

However, the implementation of the ‘right to be forgotten’ has proven difficult and the territorial scope of this right has been challenged before the CJEU.

In Case 507/17 Google v CNIL, decided in September 2019, the CJEU provided some guidance on the implementation of the ‘right to be forgotten’. The Court held that, as matter of principle, search engine operators are not required to carry out a worldwide dereferencing order (i.e. on all versions of its search engine), but should implement an EU-wide dereferencing order (i.e. on all EU versions of its search engine), to ensure a consistent and high level of data protection throughout the EU. The Court also recalls that a balance must be struck between data protection and privacy rights and the right to freedom of information when making a dereferencing order, in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Search engine operators must also implement geo-blocking measures to prevent, or at least seriously discourage, internet users in Member States from gaining access to dereferenced links within the EU.

The Google v CNIL decision has provoked significant reaction from stakeholders, civil society advocacy groups and academics. As the CJEU did not completely rule out worldwide dereferencing orders, questions as to the extraterritorial application of the ‘right to be forgotten’ and the potential conflict of rules and jurisdictions have been raised, while an increasing number of countries outside the EU are embedding such a right in their national legislation. In addition, the CJEU decision has sparked debates about the use of geoblocking techniques, the need for international standards, and how to strike a balance between privacy and protection of personal data and the right to freedom of information.

This Keysource gathers key documents, analyses and stakeholders’ views to throw a light on the issues at stake. It is the bibliographic companion to the EPRS At a glance publication: European Court of Justice limits the territorial scope of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (October 2019), which outlines the legal framework and CJEU decisions on the right to be forgotten in detail.

1. General sources of information

This survey intends to compile citizen awareness of the GDPR and more general opinions and behaviours relating to data sharing and data protection.

This factsheet, which was published following the Google Spain ruling, provides some guidelines on the implementation of the right to be forgotten.

The Article 29 Working Party (now the European Data Protection Board), an EU advisory body on data protection, issued guidelines on the implementation of the Google Spain judgment.

2. Analysis

Territorial scope and extraterritorial application of EU law

This article examines the implications of the judgment for EU residents and comments on the significance of the decision as a means for testing how far the EU can expand its data protection standards beyond its territory. It also discusses how setting a ‘floor, not a ceiling’ for dereferencing obligations preserves Member State abilities to impose global dereferencing orders and the EU’s ability to position itself as the standard-bearer for data protection regulations.

This article compares the ‘diverging’ approaches to territorial scope in the CNIL case and Case C-18/18 Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland. In particular, it asks ‘to what extent is there a coherent approach to issues arising from the internet across the various legal measures that intersect with it?’

In this post, the author compares the outcome of the final decision with the non-binding Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, and outlines how he sees the CJEU’s approach aligning with that of the United States Supreme Court on similar cases.

This article provides a commentary on the ‘general implications’ of the case, in particular the jurisdiction of delisting orders, and compares to the CJEU approach to the legal framework for the territorial scope of a right to be forgotten to the approach in the USA.

This article outlines why the outcome of the CNIL case was a ‘win’ for Google, simultaneously leaving ‘the door wide open … for future extraterritorial regulations of the internet’.

This piece argues that the CNIL judgment de facto approves geoblocking and gives rise to potential fragmentation of data protection enforcement.

This article examines ‘whether and how the right to be forgotten may apply to user-generated content hosts like Twitter or Facebook’.

While this article was published before the CNIL judgment was issued, it explains the arguments on both sides regarding territoriality and the enforcement of the right to be forgotten in the case, and provides a background summary of the key points from the Google Spain decision.

This link provides the reader with an overview of the relevant GDPR provisions and CJEU case law pertaining to a right to be forgotten in the EU.

Balancing rights

This article outlines the positive and negative effects of the decision for the right to freedom of information, including the protection of access to knowledge and the matter of delisting by geography rather than language.

This book extract examines how the right to be forgotten’s ability to protect the privacy of individuals may change in significance over time. It also sets out how unpredictable societal change will compel organisations to realise that ‘knowing there is a RtBF provision in the GDPR is enough on its own’.

3. Stakeholder views

The EFF is an advocacy group focusing on the protection of access to developing technology, and a third party to the hearings in the CNIL case. Their comments following the judgment provide an insight into the US orientation towards the protection of free speech online. A copy of the EFF’s intervention to the case can be accessed here.

Article 19 is an advocacy group for freedom of expression rights, which intervened in the CJEU hearings on behalf of a coalition of free speech organisations. The group has applauded the outcome of the case, stating that ‘Courts or data regulators in the United Kingdom, France or Germany should not be able to determine the search results that internet users in America, India or Argentina get to see’.

The CCIA advocates internationally for ‘enhancing society’s access to information and communications.’ In this press release it stresses its satisfaction with the balance the court struck between freedom of information and the rights of citizens outside the EU.

The Multistakeholder Expert Group was ‘established to assist the Commission in identifying the potential challenges in the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from the perspective of different stakeholders, and to advise the Commission on how to address them.’ The group shares its opinions of Article 17 GDPR on pp.7-9.

EDRi is an international advocacy group for digital rights. In this piece, they outline their response to the Advocate General’s opinion in the Google v CNIL case, and include links to their previous opinions on the right to be forgotten.

Walker, general counsel for Google, published this post when the CJEU decision on the Google CNIL fine was pending, and provides some insight into Google’s perspective on dereferencing order litigation.

4. International outlook

Doctrinal sources

The Judgment That Will be Forgotten, Oskar Gstrein, Verfassungsblog, 25 September 2019.

Part of this article argues that ‘the right to be forgotten is not a European concept‘, and that the CNIL judgment failed to consider how other countries have approached these cases. It compares the extent of developments in right to be forgotten jurisprudence in the EU to several other countries, and notes that ‘more than 25 percent of the nations on earth have already seen considerable legal developments in the area of a right to be forgotten, including regulation and court judgments.’

Article 8, the Right to be Forgotten and the Media, Hugh Tomlinson QC and Aidan Wills, International Forum for Responsible Media Blog, July 2018.

This review of the M.L. and W.W. v Germany case provides an overview of the criteria used to decide on delisting questions at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It comments on the parallels between the ECtHR and the approach in the Google Spain case, and outlines why a dereferencing request may be more ‘powerful’ against search engine operators or internet platforms than primary publishers such as news publications.

The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Online within G20 Statutory Data Protection Frameworks, David Erdos and Krzysztof Gartska, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No 31/2019, September 2019.

This paper argues that the ‘basic underpinnings [of a right to be forgotten] are present in the great majority of G20 statutory frameworks. Whilst China, India, Saudi Arabia and the United States remain exceptional cases, fifteen out of nineteen (almost 80 %) of G20 countries now have fully-fledged statutory data protection laws. By default, almost all of these laws empower individuals to challenge the continued dissemination of personal data, not only when such data may be inaccurate but also on wider legitimacy grounds.’

National legislation


The Right to Be Forgotten, Michael Kelly and David Satola, Illinois Law Review, January 2017.

The most prominent right to be forgotten case in Argentina arose in 2009, in the Virginia da Cunha case. This article gives an overview of the case and its ramifications from pp.28-31.


Data and Digital Rights: Recent Australian Developments, Goggin et al, Internet Policy Review, March 2019.

This paper explores proposals relating to data privacy rights from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)’s Digital Platforms, and from a government-mandated creation of a Consumer Data Right.


Non-Compliance with Judicial Requests for Content Removal, Bloqueios, January 2007.

Questions on the enforceability of dereferencing orders arose in Brazil in 2007, when one of the country’s largest fixed-line telephone operators responded to a judicial order to remove a video of model Daniela Cicarelli from Youtube, which resulted in Youtube being blocked in large parts of the country. The link above provides an overview of and analysis of the materials in English relating to the case.


Draft OPC Position on Online Reputation, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 26 January 2018.

The Privacy Commissioner lists ‘Reputation and Privacy’ as one of its strategic priorities for 2015-2020. Its draft position includes sections dedicated to De-Indexing, Source Amendment / Takedown and Legislative Solutions.


Right to be Forgotten: A New Privacy Right in the Era of Internet, Yuriko Haga, September 2017.

This chapter outlines the history and current situation regarding a potential right to be forgotten in Japan (section 5), including the appearance of cases against search engines since 2008, and the influence of the Google Spain judgment on more recent cases.

Other countries

The Right to be Forgotten – the EU and Asia Pacific Experience (Australia, Indonesia, Japan and Singapore), Zeller et al, European Human Rights Law Review 2019 volume 1, p.23, UNSW Law Research Paper No 19-2, 23 January 2019.

The following articles and reports include further examples of countries where reference to a right to be forgotten has appeared in court judgments, statutes, or draft legislation:


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/12/eu-right-to-be-forgotten/

Mercosur: Economic indicators and trade with EU

Written by Giulio Sabbati,
In cooperation with Olga Griaznova (from GlobalStat | EUI),

Mercosur, the ‘southern common market’, was founded in 1991 when Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay signed the Treaty of Asunción. In 2012, Venezuela formally joined Mercosur as a fifth member, but in December 2016 the country was suspended temporarily for failure to transpose Mercosur rules into Venezuelan law. In August 2017, the suspension was prolonged indefinitely. This paper presents economic indicators for the four members, for example showing their GDP and labour market situations, and it also shows those countries’ relative positions on several indexes that assess the situation in terms of doing business, corruption and human development. Finally, it looks at trade between the EU and Mercosur – of both goods and services – highlighting the main trading partners, and the main products and services that the EU exports to and imports from the four Mercosur members.

Download this infographic on ‘Mercosur: Economic indicators and trade with EU‘ in PDF.

GlobalStat, a project of the EUI’s Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation aims to offer the best available gateway to statistical data. It is easily accessible, intuitive to use, and free of charge. In just three clicks it offers data from 1960 onwards for 193 UN countries, five continents and 12 political and regional entities – including the European Union – gathered from over 80 international sources. The project, presents data as diverse as income distribution, water resources, housing, migration, land use, food production, nutrition, or life expectancy, which contributes to a better understanding of the interrelations between human living conditions and globalisation trends.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/11/mercosur-economic-indicators-and-trade-with-eu/

2019 Sakharov Prize laureate: Ilham Tohti

Written by Gisela Grieger,

© Andy Wong / APImages

© Andy Wong / APImages

Space for freedom of thought is shrinking dramatically across the globe, as the geo-political and geo-economic clout of authoritarian regimes expands. The Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought is therefore more important than ever: it enables the European Parliament to draw attention to the plight of those who stand up against the repression of human rights and fundamental freedoms, principles on which the EU is based and which it promotes in its external relations, in line with Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union. The 2019 Sakharov Prize laureate is renowned Uyghur economics professor Ilham Tohti, a moderate advocate of the rights of the Uyghur minority and of dialogue with the Han majority in China. In 2014, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on separatism-related charges, against the backdrop of China’s hardening policy of countering religious extremism, ethnic separatism and terrorism – one that now frames Uyghur identity as a major national security threat. The Sakharov Prize is a €50 000 award, which will be presented at a ceremony in the European Parliament during the December plenary session in Strasbourg, in the presence of the other finalists.

Significance of the Sakharov Prize

Every year, since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to individuals or organisations for outstanding achievements in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms – notably the right to freedom of expression; safeguarding the rights of minorities; upholding international law; developing democracy; or implementing the rule of law. The prize was initiated by a 1985 parliamentary resolution adopted in memory of Andrei Sakharov, the eminent Soviet-Russian nuclear physicist, 1975 Nobel Peace Prize winner, dissident and human rights activist. The prize symbolises Sakharov’s courageous defence of human rights, notably the freedom of thought and expression, and personal freedom, that were at times denied him during his professional career.

Award procedure and the 2019 Sakharov Prize finalists and laureate

Candidates for the Sakharov Prize can be nominated by a political group, or at least 40 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). From the list of nominees, three finalists are then shortlisted by MEPs in a joint vote of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Development. For the 2019 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought the finalists were: 1) Ilham Tohti; 2) murdered Brazilian political activist and human rights defender, Marielle Franco, native Brazilian leader and environmentalist, Chief Raoni, and Brazilian environmentalist and human rights defender, Claudelice Silva dos Santos; and 3) The Restorers, a group of five students from Kenya – Stacy Owino, Cynthia Otieno, Purity Achieng, Mascrine Atieno and Ivy Akinyi – who have developed i-Cut, an app to help girls affected by female genital mutilation.

On 24 October 2019, Parliament’s Conference of Presidents decided to honour Ilham Tohti with the 2019 Sakharov Prize. When announcing the decision, Parliament’s President, David Sassoli, stressed that Ilham Tohti had been ‘a voice of moderation and reconciliation’. He added that by ‘awarding this prize, we strongly urge the Chinese government to release Tohti and we call for the respect of minority rights in China’. Ilham Tohti, a liberal Uyghur intellectual, who was previously nominated in 2016, is the third Chinese winner, and the first-ever Uyghur to receive the prize. Wei Jingsheng, who in 1978 called for ‘The Fifth Modernisation: democracy‘, as China launched its economic reform and opening up policy, was awarded the prize in 1996, a year before he was released from prison to his US exile. Hu Jia, a dissident and democracy activist, was awarded the prize in 2008, three years before he was released from prison. Commenting on the 2019 award, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry reportedly said: ‘I hope that Europe can respect China’s internal affairs and judicial sovereignty, and avoid celebrating a terrorist’. The 42nd EU-China Inter-parliamentary meeting, scheduled for 12 November 2019, and the related programme, were cancelled owing to the unavailability of the Chinese delegation.

Ilham Tohti – a voice for the entire Uyghur people

Ilham Tohti was born in 1969 in China’s north-western Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) which is home to about 10 million Turkic-speaking Uyghurs (about 45 % of the XUAR population) who practise a moderate form of Sunni Islam and enjoy close ethnic and cultural ties with Central Asian countries. Professor Tothi lectured at the Beijing-based Minzu University for ethnic minority studies, and published critical analyses on the impact of the Chinese government’s assimilation policies on the cultural, social, economic, political and religious life of Uyghurs. In 2006, he set up the Chinese language website ‘UighurBiz.cn‘ as a platform for inter-ethnic exchange between Han Chinese and Uyghurs. The website was shut down when Ilham Tothi was accused of having contributed through his website to the 2009 violent attacks perpetrated by Uyghur militants in the XUAR cities of Urumqi and Kashgar. Despite being outspoken in his advocacy of regional autonomy laws, Tohti was opposed to radical separatist movements, standing rather for dialogue and reconciliation with the Han majority. In 2014, after he had reportedly challenged the Chinese government’s version of violent incidents involving Uyghurs, he was detained and, after a two-day show trial, sentenced to life in prison allegedly for ‘separatism‘. As researcher Darren Byler put it: ‘Now, like Ilham, they [both Uyghur students and public intellectuals] realised that all of them could be accused of ‘separatism’. There was no space to publicly suggest ways to oppose the elimination of Uyghur culture’.

Since his sentencing in 2014, Ilham Tohti has been awarded the 2014 PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award, the 2016 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, and the 2017 Liberal International Prize for Freedom. In October 2019, he won the Council of Europe’s Václav Havel Human Rights Prize.

China’s approach to counter-terrorism, de-radicalisation and de-extremification

Since Xinjiang became part of China in 1949, successive Chinese governments have sought to integrate the predominantly rural Uyghurs economically and culturally, first with soft approaches, boosting economic development and respecting ethnic differences, but mainly benefiting incoming urban Han Chinese migrants. Later, government launched ‘strike hard’ campaigns, as deepening inter-ethnic socio-economic cleavages bred violence from Uyghur militants. The appearance of Uyghur foreign fighters in Syria in 2014 highlighted the interlinkages between the internal and external dimensions of the three interconnected threats to China’s concept of stability – religious extremism, ethnic separatism and terrorism. China has stepped up the security element of its strategy for countering these ‘three evils’, and has linked them to the distinctiveness of Uyghur identity. As a result, the XUAR’s public security budget has ballooned, leading to a pervasive and intrusive policing system reliant on ubiquitous cutting-edge surveillance cameras, ethnicity-sensitive facial recognition systems and an algorithm-based big-data analysis platform to identify politically ‘untrustworthy’ people. Since 2017, China has built a well-documented grid of ‘de-extremification’ mass internment camps whose existence it at first denied and then called ‘vocational re-education and training centres’ on the basis of 2018 XUAR legislation. The camps host an estimated one to two million Uyghurs, and other Muslim minorities, who are politically indoctrinated and have the cultural and religious features of their identity systematically eradicated, as China associates them with ‘extremist’ behaviour. China has justified the camps as successful preventive de-radicalisation measures that it appears keen to export.

Global responses to China’s extra-judicial detention camps and high-tech illiberalism

In recent years, Parliament has systematically denounced massive violations of the Uyghur minority’s human rights, in resolutions adopted in 2016, 2018 and 2019. The case of Ilham Tohti was raised during the 2019 EU-China Human Rights Dialogue. Western governments have criticised China’s Uyghur policy in the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and in the UN Third Committee in 2019, prompting a group of other countries, including Muslim countries, to release joint statements defending China. The US Congress has adopted the Uighur Intervention and Global Humanitarian Unified Response Act of 2019. The US has banned the import of products made by firms in Xinjiang over their use of forced labour. It has also issued visa restrictions on key Chinese officials, and blacklisted 28 Chinese firms, including Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, the Chinese government’s main supplier of surveillance gear. The firm enjoys close ties with the Chinese government, and has come under scrutiny in some EU countries for its involvement in the repression of Uyghurs in China. The leaked ‘China Cables‘/’Xinjiang papers’ give clear evidence of the repression that China has staunchly denied, and may prompt more actors to actually ‘walk the talk’.

Read this ‘at a glance’ on ‘2019 Sakharov Prize laureate: Ilham Tohti‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/11/2019-sakharov-prize-laureate-ilham-tohti/

Outlook for the meetings of EU leaders on 12-13 December 2019

Written by Ralf Drachenberg and Suzana Anghel,

© glen photo / Shutterstock.com

© glen photo / Shutterstock.com

At the meeting of EU Heads of State or Government in December 2019, the first to be presided over by Charles Michel, EU leaders will meet in three different formats: a regular European Council, a European Council (Article 50) meeting, and an inclusive Euro Summit. The main issues on the agenda of the European Council are climate change, with EU leaders expected to endorse the objective of climate-neutrality for the Union by 2050, and the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), with a discussion, for the first time, on the basis of figures proposed by the Finnish Presidency of the Council, as well as on the procedure for reaching agreement. They will also address the idea of a Conference on the Future of Europe, with the aim of developing a joint position of Member States on the initiative. The European Council (Article 50) meeting is expected to discuss the result of the general election in the UK (taking place on 12 December) and the likely consequences for the Brexit process, as well as preparations for the negotiations on future EU-UK relations. The Euro Summit will concentrate on the revision of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty, the budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness (BICC), and technical work on the strengthening of the banking union.

1. Implementation: Follow-up to previous European Council commitments

As announced in the October 2019 European Council conclusions, EU leaders will return to the issues of the MFF for the 2021-27 period, and climate change, as reflected in the annotated draft agenda.

At the start of the European Council meeting, the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, will address the Heads of State or Government. Sanna Marin, newly appointed Prime Minister of Finland, which currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the Council of Ministers, will provide an overview of progress made in implementing previous European Council conclusions. This meeting will also be the first European Council to be presided over by Charles Michel, previously Prime Minister of Belgium, who took over as President of the European Council on 1 December.

2. European Council meeting

Climate change

The ‘objective of achieving a climate-neutral EU by 2050’ will be the main and most sensitive issue for the European Council to consider. For the moment, Member States are still seeking agreement on this objective, which is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of the European Green Deal announced by the new European Commission. Building consensus for the effective ‘endorsement’ of the objective of climate-neutrality by 2050 will be Charles Michel’s first major challenge as new European Council President. He has called the European Green Deal a ‘peace treaty with nature’, and committed to ‘work to “convince” all Member States to agree’ on this objective. Earlier attempts to achieve consensus were not fully successful, therefore resulting in the inclusion of a footnote in the June 2019 European Council conclusions, which acknowledged that ‘for a large majority of Member States, climate neutrality must be achieved by 2050’.

Climate is increasingly a horizontal issue, mainstreamed in all EU policies. Its funding is a key element for the EU’s credibility. EU leaders are expected to agree that a ‘significant percentage’ of the next MFF should be allocated to climate change. The Heads of State or Government will probably also discuss investment to support a ‘just and socially balanced transition’. Several Member States, which fear a negative impact of the green transition on their regions, notably Poland, consider that the acceptance of the principle of a socially balanced transition is needed as a guarantee for their support for the climate-neutrality objective. The forthcoming Just Transition Fund announced by the new Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, would support those regions be most affected by the green transition. In the absence of an agreement on climate targets, the Just Transition Fund, although mentioned in earlier drafts of the October 2019 European Council conclusions, was removed from the final version.

Global CO2 emissions have risen by four per cent compared to pre-Paris Agreement levels, with the EU at risk of being unable to meet its 2020 climate targets. In the context of its 2030 targets, it is urgent for Member States to finalise their national long-term greenhouse-gas emissions strategies, and to communicate them to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in the first quarter of 2020, in compliance with the Paris Agreement. The European Parliament has called on Member States ‘to consider aviation and shipping’ in their national plans and to double their contributions to the UN Green Climate Fund. At its March 2019 meeting, the European Council called for ‘the timely finalisation of the national-long term strategies’. At that point, only four Member States (Czechia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom) had submitted their contributions. In the meantime, the number has increased to five with the submission of the Portuguese contribution.

The European Council will most probably concentrate on several other items as part of its climate debate. These include, inter alia, the mooted carbon border tax and energy security, as well as means to counter climate-related aspects of distortions to the internal market generated by foreign subsidies to foreign-owned companies in the EU. The European Council has already stressed that there is a need to address the ‘distortive effects’ of such subsidies. Furthermore, ahead of the European Council, the European Commission is expected to present proposals for the first ever ‘European Climate Law’.

The European Council could also consider the external dimension of climate action by stressing the EU’s climate diplomacy role in fulfilling the 2019-24 Strategic Agenda objective to globally lead ‘the way forward in the fight against climate change’.

Multiannual Financial Framework

The European Council is expected to hold a substantive discussion on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). On 2 December, the Finnish Presidency of the Council presented a negotiating box with figures. The Finnish proposal envisages a budget of 1.06 % of the EU’s gross national income (GNI) for 2021-2027, which is significantly lower than the proposals of the European Commission (1.114 %) and Parliament (1.3 %). Nevertheless, some Member States call for the MFF to be set at 1.0 %. The proposal from the Finnish Presidency also makes reference to the introduction of a general regime of conditionality ‘to tackle identified instances of general deficiencies as regards the rule of law in Member States’.

Concerning own resources, the Finnish proposal considers the possible introduction of national contributions for non-recycled plastic packaging, as well as a share of the revenues of the Emissions Trading System. Here again, the proposals of the Commission (e.g. call rate applied to the new Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) and the Parliament’s requests (e.g. digital services taxation, a financial transaction tax, income from the emissions trading scheme, and a carbon border adjustment mechanism) go beyond what the Council currently seems willing to agree on.

Members of the European Council are not expected to reach an agreement on the substance of the MFF at this meeting, but to agree a methodology for reaching consensus. An extraordinary European Council meeting is being considered for early in the New Year, with a view to a possible agreement at the scheduled March 2020 meeting.

On 10 October 2019, the new European Parliament adopted a resolution on the MFF, reiterating that ‘Parliament will not rubber-stamp a fait accompli from the European Council’, and calling on the latter institution to ‘refrain from adopting detailed and purportedly binding conclusions based on the MFF negotiating box, as this would amount to direct interference in the legislative sphere’.

External relations

The European Council is expected to discuss external relations issues. EU leaders could take stock of the evolution of the situation in Ukraine, including the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, and green-light the renewal of the economic sanctions imposed on Russia following the illegal annexation of Crimea. Following the 9 December 2019 Foreign Affairs Council, the EU leaders might call, once again, to strengthen the EU-Africa partnership and to speed up work on the forthcoming comprehensive strategy on Africa announced by the new European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen.

Other items

Conference on the Future of Europe

The European Council is also expected to discuss the proposal for a Conference on the Future of Europe. The idea was first suggested by the French President, Emmanuel Macron, in March 2019, and was subsequently supported by the new Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, before her election by the Parliament. She indicated that she would also consider Treaty change if the outcome of the conference were to require such a step. The notion of Treaty change elicited little enthusiasm from EU Heads of State or Government when presenting their views on the Future of Europe in the European Parliament in 2018-2019. Recently, France and Germany have made a joint proposal outlining their views. For more information, please see the EPRS Briefing, Preparing the Conference on the Future of Europe.

As there is currently no agreed position between the Member States, the European Council is expected to invite the incoming Council Presidency (Croatia) to work towards defining a Council position on the content, scope, composition and functioning of such a conference. This position is likely to emphasise that the conference should as a matter of priority focus on the development of the EU’s policies in the medium and long term, building on the recent citizens’ dialogues. The European Council is likely to underline the need for an inclusive process and shared ownership by European institutions and Member States. In this context, the European Council is also expected to recall the importance of implementing the Strategic Agenda 2019-24.

3. European Council (Article 50) meeting

On 13 December, EU-27 leaders will discuss preparations for the negotiations on future EU-UK relations, notably a negotiating mandate for future trade talks. The result of the UK general election, to be held the previous day, on 12 December, will likely play an important role in the next stage of the withdrawal process, as well as in the shape of the future relationship.

According to Article 50(3) TEU, the Treaties cease to apply to the withdrawing country from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification, unless the European Council, in agreement with the withdrawing country, unanimously decides to extend this period. Following unsuccessful attempts by the UK to ratify the withdrawal agreement and two extensions of the period under Article 50(3), the European Council, on 29 October 2019, approved a third extension to allow for more time for the ratification of the revised withdrawal agreement, until 31 January 2020, at the latest.

4. Euro Summit

On Friday 13 December, EU-27 leaders will meet for a Euro Summit to follow-up on the discussion last June on the deepening of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

The Euro Summit will take stock of progress made since the June statement and consider in particular the revision of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty, the budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness (BICC), and technical work on strengthening the banking union. The Eurogroup, which reports directly to the EU leaders, met to prepare these topics on 4 December.

Ahead of the Euro Summit meeting, President Charles Michel met with the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Central Bank, and the President of the Eurogroup to discuss recent economic developments. They reflected on seven consecutive years of growth and record high employment levels in Europe. According to Michel, uncertainties in the international context are the main reason for risks to the economic outlook. In his opinion, it is essential to deepen EMU and strengthen the banking union, so as to ensure that sustainable economic growth and more jobs can be created. The President of the European Council plans to hold similar meetings ahead of every Euro Summit.

Read this briefing on ‘Outlook for the meetings of EU leaders on 12-13 December 2019‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/10/outlook-for-the-meetings-of-eu-leaders-on-12-13-december-2019/

European Youth Event

European Youth Event 2018 - #EYE2018- Yo!Fest Village

© European Union – EP, 2019

The European Parliament regularly receives questions from citizens about the European Youth Event. Are you interested too? Find out how you can take part!

The European Youth Event (also known as EYE) is a two-day event bringing thousands of young Europeans together in the European Parliament’s Strasbourg headquarters.

The EYE gives young people an opportunity to take part in political debates, workshops and other activities, and to interact with leading EU figures and decision-makers. Each event is also a venue for young people to voice their ideas on how to improve Europe and the world.

The event is organised by the European Parliament in cooperation with the European Youth Forum and other organisations.

Practical arrangements for EYE2020

The next edition of the European Youth Event will take place at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 29-30 May 2020.

Groups of at least 10 people aged 16 to 30 – from the European Union and beyond – can sign up to the event. Registration opens in January 2020 on the European Parliament website.

Attending the EYE is free of charge. However, participants have to cover their own transport and accommodation costs and pay for their own meals.

The languages used at the event are English, French and German.

If you cannot attend the event in person, you will be able to follow some of the activities online and participate via social media.

Previous editions

The first edition of the European Youth Event (EYE2014) was held from 9-11 May 2014. It served as a platform for participants to share their ideas and opinions on issues such as youth unemployment, the digital revolution, the future of the EU, sustainability and European values.

EYE2016, held on 20 and 21 May 2016, gave over 7 500 young Europeans the opportunity to discuss a variety of themes under the event’s slogan: ‘Together we can make a change’.

At the latest edition of the event, EYE2018, held in Strasbourg on 1-2 June 2018, close to 9 000 young Europeans got together to discuss issues and came up with 100 ideas on how to improve Europe.


Keep sending your questions to the Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (Ask EP)! We reply in the EU language that you use to write to us.

Further information

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2019/12/09/european-youth-event/