Parliamentary debate references

Pages

Denmark, Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om at ophæve EU’s kodeks for onlineadfærd

Translated Title: [Denmark, ‘Motion for a bill repealing the EU’s Code of Conduct countering illegal hate speech online’]
Nine members of the Danish Parliament representing the Danish People’s Party presented on 29 November 2017 a proposal to the Danish Parliaments calling for a motion for the Parliament to adopt a bill that obligates the Government to announce to the Council of the European Union that the Danish Government will initiate efforts with the aim of repealing the EU’s Code of Conduct countering illegal hate speech online, which has been entered between the European Commission, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft. Furthermore, it is suggested in the motion for the bill that the Parliament should obligate the Danish Government to actively oppose potential initiatives of the European Commission to make the Code of Conduct legally binding or attempts to adopt legally binding rules limiting the freedom of expression of citizens of the EU. The authors state in the annex to the motion for the bill that the Danish Government should stress before the Council of the European Union and the European Commission that limitations of the freedom of expression must be strictly necessary in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter. Quote “Regeringen må minde Rådet for Den Europæiske Union (Rådet) og Kommissionen om, at artikel 11 i EU’s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder beskytter ytringsfriheden, og at det er et krav, at begrænsninger af ytringsfriheden er strengt nødvendige, står mål med det formål, der vil opnås, og har en klar og gennemskuelig lovhjemmel. Disse betingelser lever adfærdskodekset ikke op til”. Translation of Quote: ‘The Government must remind the Council of the European Union (the Council) and the Commission that Article 11 of EU’s charter on fundamental rights protects the freedom of expression and that it is a requirement that limitations of the freedom of expression are strictly necessary, measure up to the pursued aim and have a clear and transparent basis in national law. The Code of Conduct does not comply with these requirements’.
Published in:
Folketinget 2017-18, Beslutningsforslag
No. B 41
Publication Year: 2017

Ireland, Joint Committee on Justice and Equality debate - Wednesday, 14 June 2017

The debate concerned a bill on Data Protection. The discussion focused on the content of the Bill and how the Bill gives effect to EU Rules, including provisions of EU Regulation 2016/679 concerning the right to protection of personal data and the right to freedom of expression and information which are both included in the Charter. The Charter had an impact in the sense that it was included in the EU Regulation and then subsequently in the Bill but it did not impact on the debate. Mr Carroll from the Department of Justice and Equality explains what is to be included in the Bill. He states at one point: ‘Head 24 seeks to give effect to Article 85 of the regulation, which recognises that it is a matter for member state law to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the right to freedom of expression and information, both of which are rights included in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.’ Mr Carroll later states: ‘Moving on to Part 6, without prejudice to the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, both the regulation and the directive require that data subjects have the right to an effective judicial remedy. Provision for this is made in head 91. Recourse to the courts is necessary in any event in those cases in which a data subject claims compensation for material or non-material damage suffered as a result of a breach of data protection law. Head 90 makes provision for the appointment of a supervisory authority to supervise the processing activities of courts when acting in their judicial capacity. Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that compliance with its rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.’
Published in:
32nd Dáil
Publication Year: 2017

Austria, Hearing zu Top 1: Fremdenrechtsänderungsgesetz 2017

Translated Title: [Austria, Hearing to Top 1: Amendment Act on the Law of Aliens 2017 ]
In a parliamentary debate concerning the Amendment Act on the Law of Aliens 2017, the Member of Parliament emphasized the importance of Union Law, especially the CFR, in the context of asylum procedures. More concretely, he underlined the significance of Art47 CFR and the necessity to have effective legal remedies provided.
Author(s): Lahner Clemens
Published in:
Stenographische Protokolle
Vol. XXV. Gesetzgebungsperiode
No. 23. Sitzung des Nationalrates der Republik Österreich
Publication Year: 2017

Ireland, parliamentary question by Deputy Charles Flanagan on the Good Friday Agreement

The Debate concerned the Good Friday Agreement and how the human rights provisions included in it would be enforced in Ireland and Northern Ireland post-BREXIT. Questions were raised about how an equivalence of human rights in Ireland and Northern Ireland could be ensured and the Charter was raised in this context. It did not have a definite impact on the debate but the proposition of the UK government concerning the Charter post-BREXIT was explained. Deputy Charles Flanagan stated: ‘I assure the House and the Deputy that the Government is a firm supporter of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but the Good Friday Agreement predates that charter and does not expressly provide for it. That said, the charter provides an important and effective common reference on rights across the island of Ireland, as it does across the EU as a whole. I wish to refer again to the White Paper on legislating for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. The British Government expressly indicated that the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in Northern Ireland will not be applied as part of British law after the UK leaves the EU. This may require that a consideration may be given to alternative means of ensuring the coherence of rights frameworks across the island of Ireland.’
Published in:
Dáil Éireann, 32nd Dáil
Vol. 947
No. 1
Publication Year: 2017

Denmark, Udlændinge- og integrationsministeren - Svar - Spørgsmål nr. 27 til L 153 fra Udlændinge- og Integrationsudvalget

Translated Title: [Denmark, Ministry of Immigration and Integration ‘Reply to question no. 27 to L 153 from the Parliamentary Committee on Immigration and Integration]
Ms Karen J. Klint is a member of the Parliamentary Committee on Immigration and Integration and represents the Social Democrats. She raised a question in writing to the Danish Minister for Immigration and Integration requesting the minister to provide information on judgments and/or conventions protecting unaccompanied asylum children from being extradited. The minister stressed that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board shall make a general assessment of whether a country under the Dublin Regulation is to be considered as a safe third country. If the Appeals Board finds that there is a risk that the unaccompanied child may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment as defined in Article 4 of the Charter, the unaccompanied child cannot be extradited to the country in question.
Published in:
Udlændinge- og Integrationsudvalget 2016-17
No. L 153
Publication Year: 2017

Ireland, parliamentary debate focused on Media Ownership Bill 2017 Second Stage [Private Members] (Continued)

The Debate concerned a bill on Media Ownership. The discussion focused on how the concentration of media ownership in Ireland had been a concern and that the protection of a free and pluralistic media is a feature of a functioning democracy. The Charter was referenced as including the protection of a free and pluralistic media. It did not have an impact on the debate.
Published in:
Dáil Éireann 32nd Dáil
Vol. 937
No. 4
Publication Year: 2017

Denmark, Hermed sendes besvarelse af spørgsmål nr. 336 (Alm. del) som Folketingets Retsudvalg

Translated Title: [Denmark, Reply to question no. 336 from the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs]
Mr Peter Skaarup is a member of the Danish Parliament, including the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs and represents the Danish People’s Party. As a part of his work in the committee, Mr Skaarup raised a question to the Danish Minister of Justice on whether Denmark has a human rights responsibility as regards statements on social media or on the internet, for example, a responsibility to protect against hateful speech or to protect against discriminating censorship of unpopular opinions expressed on social media. In its reply, the ministry stated that Article 11 of the Charter corresponds to the provision in Article 10 of the ECHR. It then went on to assess the issue in accordance with Article 10 of the ECHR rather than Article 11 of the Charter. The ministry states that, in accordance with Article 10 of the ECHR, it may be necessary in a democratic society to sanction statements if they incite to violence or are expressions of hate speech.
Published in:
Publication Year: 2017

Pages