![]() ![]() ![]() Within the list of crimes falling under Europol’s remit, the rapporteur counts at least three which would be relevant in cases involving surveillance technology, namely cybercrime, corruption, and racketeering and extortion. Refusing to use those powers is not an option,” said Sophie in ‘t Veld, the rapporteur for the European Parliament’s spyware inquiry committee, also known as PEGA. ![]() Those powers were granted to you in order to protect the EU citizens. “We have created the new powers for Europol. However, during Thursday’s Pegasus inquiry meeting, Jean-Philippe Lecouffe, Europol’s deputy executive director of operations, said that this possibility has not yet been exploited by Europol to push member states to look into spyware cases. In June this year, an EU regulation on Europol’s capabilities was amended, thus providing the European law enforcement agency with the opportunity to ask member states to initiate investigations rather than wait for member states to take action. With countries such as Greece trying to sweep the use of surveillance technologies against its citizens under the carpet of national security interests, the question of how the EU can interfere if abuse of the technology is suspected has resurfaced. The issue of the EU’s competences to scrutinise spyware use came to the forefront during a parliamentary hearing on Tuesday (30 August), where a Europol representative said the agency’s mandate was limited to supporting member states choosing to launch an investigation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |