Julian King (UK), the former European Commissioner for the Security Union, was perhaps a little too ambitious when he hoped, as recently as September, that an agreement would be reached before the end of the year between European Parliament and Council of the EU negotiators dealing with the draft regulation on the withdrawal of online terrorist content (see EUROPE 12231/8).
Despite the efforts it has made, the Finnish Presidency will have to abandon this objective and will pass it on to the Croatian Presidency.
The trilogue and other technical meetings, which began on 17 October with a new European Parliament team in place, Patryk Jaki (ECR, Poland) having succeeded Daniel Dalton (UK), who was not re-elected to Parliament, were not able to resolve the main differences of opinion between the two bodies, making it unlikely that the matter will be resolved quickly.
The last meeting was held on 5 December and allowed progress to be made on certain technical aspects, according to a source. Another meeting will take place next week, but at this stage the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, which approved its terms of reference in December 2018 (see EUROPE 12154/1), still differ quite fundamentally on the objectives and processes for the reform.
The most controversial issues include the injunction/order issued to internet platforms telling them to remove content deemed radical and terrorist in nature within an hour, and proactive measures and tools (such as algorithms and other filters) that include preventative detection of violent content on the internet.
The cross-border scope of the injunction and the nature of the authority issuing the injunction are other major points of disagreement.
The German shadow rapporteur on the issue, Patrick Breyer of the German Pirate Party (Greens-EFA), pointed out that this issue is just as crucial as the Copyright Directive, because it involves the same fundamental principles.
He explained to EUROPE that he believes that the proactive measures, which would involve asking platforms to scan the internet, represent a major violation of fundamental rights.
Both he and the European Parliament find a number of points problematic. The Parliament’s terms of reference, which were approved in the spring and confirmed in September, differ quite markedly from those approved for the Council of the EU: the European Parliament refuses to allow withdrawal orders to be issued for journalistic or educational content, for example. The European Parliament has created exceptions for material of this nature, which is intended to inform or educate people, whereas the Council of the EU's proposal does not make this distinction.
The injunctions themselves are also problematic, as the European Parliament has allowed 12 hours for withdrawal of content if it is physically impossible to do so more quickly (for platforms with fewer resources).
On the nature of the authority that can issue these injunctions/withdrawal orders, the European Parliament is requesting an independent or judicial authority where Member States are less specific about the type of authority that will be making the decisions for them.
The blockage preventing resolution of this matter should therefore not be removed quickly “unless the Council of the EU accepts all of our points”, he joked. In any event, he believes it is essential not to let anything get past, because this regulation will set precedents for other reforms in the future, such as the Digital Act.
In any event, the Council of the EU has not shown any sign “that it might move” at the moment, added the MEP, which the Council of the EU challenges, stating that it is quite ready to demonstrate “openness”, according to one source, and, on the contrary, expects the European Parliament to agree to move forward with it. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)