On Wednesday 11 March, during its ongoing plenary session, the European Parliament adopted, subject to certain conditions, the Commission’s proposal to extend the derogation from the ePrivacy Directive, which allows communication platforms to voluntarily detect child sexual abuse material online.
The vote, which received 458 votes in favour, 103 against and 63 abstentions, was primarily aimed at avoiding a legal vacuum before the current derogation expires on 3 April, pending adoption of the regulation to prevent and combat online child sexual abuse (CSAM). It is therefore officially launching the interinstitutional negotiations (‘trilogue’).
A more cautious report on the protection of personal data. Although the initial text by rapporteur Birgit Sippel (S&D, German) was ultimately rejected by the Committee on Civil Liberties on 2 March (see EUROPE 13819/17), it was able to be ‘recovered’ thanks to compromises with the EPP and Renew Europe.
As a result, the new report includes additional legal safeguards. The amendments adopted ensure that the technologies used by the platforms do not compromise “end-to-end encryption” and that they are restricted to the communications of individuals “identified by the competent judicial authority” on the basis of “reasonable” suspicion. They therefore exclude any predictive analysis enabling global scanning. Ms Sippel summed up the European Parliament’s red line for the forthcoming discussions, insisting that the protection of minors “cannot be achieved through indiscriminate mass surveillance”.
During the debate following the vote, several MEPs were reassured by these developments: according to Markéta Gregorová (Greens/EFA, Czech), the European Parliament proved that “protecting children and protecting our fundamental rights are not incompatible”.
Persistent concerns and trilogues on the horizon. Other MEPs, particularly on the far right of the Chamber, remained highly critical of what they described as a drift towards security. Alexandr Vondra (ECR, Czech) deplored the persistence of repressive responsibilities in the hands of private actors, arguing that communications surveillance was “not the right approach” and that care should be taken not to “draw inspiration from the methods used in China”. António Tânger Corrêa (PfE, Portuguese) warned that “totalitarianism begins with the control of speech”, denouncing the lack of evidence of the proportionality of these measures in the Commission’s impact studies.
Faced with these objections, Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing, stressed that cyber-crime was “taking on dramatic proportions”, pointing out that the ‘Cyber tip line’ had received 21.3 million alerts in October 2025, 20 times more than in 2010. Javier Zarzalejos (EPP, Spanish) also retorted to the report’s detractors that confidentiality must not be a “shield behind which abusers can hide”.
The Cyprus Presidency of the EU Council, which wanted a two-year extension without changes, immediately took note of these amendments and scheduled a trilogue meeting on 12 March to compare its position with Parliament’s requirements. (Original version in French by Justine Manaud)