There will be no Parliament-Council-Commission trilogue meetings before September on the Regulation on the removal of terrorist content online (see EUROPE 12385/10). While the coordinators of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) had at one time imagined highly secure videoconferencing solutions to resume discussions with the EU Council, they noted at a meeting on 3 July that it will be impossible to take up the issue before the return from summer holidays, as the conditions have not yet been met, according to two sources.
The issue of removing terrorist content within the hour is particularly sensitive and was identified as a priority by Commissioner Ylva Johansson, who in April asked the chair of the LIBE Committee, Spain’s Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D), to do everything possible to resume the work interrupted by Covid-19.
The last trilogue was scheduled for 18 March. According to an EU Council document seen by EUROPE, there are still a few open points to be discussed before an agreement can be reached this year, although some agreement has been reached on certain chapters.
The EU Council may, for example, accept Parliament’s request to change the name of the Regulation. It will reportedly be called the ‘Regulation on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online’ as opposed to ‘preventing the dissemination’.
The open points include the definition of the scope of ‘terrorist content’; Parliament considers the definition to be too broad - unduly interfering, for example, with freedom of the press; the compromise on the table therefore suggests specific protection for content disseminated specifically for journalistic or research purposes. Most Member States were able to support this compromise.
With regard to the measures referred to as ‘proactive’, which could include automated filters, the change to ‘specific’ measures - which are therefore more targeted, as Parliament wanted - was taken up and also provisionally supported by the Member States.
Cross-border removal orders (a national authority would have direct jurisdiction over a platform based in another Member State to require the removal of content) remain a red line for the EU Council. Without it, the Regulation would be of little utility, because it would lack the ability to act swiftly.
The Parliament presented a compromise that distinguishes between injunctions that can be issued by any Member State, which would have to be confirmed by the host Member State, and injunctions that can only be issued by the Member State where the target company is located.
The Commission has proposed that the authority from the country where the company is located could request a formal reassessment of an initial removal order, but Member States are divided.
With regard to the penalties to be applied, in any case, particularly those that affect the target company’s turnover, the two legislators are reportedly close to an agreement.
Link to the document: https://bit.ly/3e4TrWP (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)