The controversial EU regulation on “chat control” could come to a vote sooner than expected. According to MEPs Martin Sonneborn and Sibylle Berg, the proposal is to be dealt with in the European Parliament under an urgent procedure – even though the law is already in its second reading. The two MEPs accuse the parliamentary leadership of disregarding its own rules of procedure and undermining parliamentary oversight.
What’s behind “Chat Control”
The term “Chat Control” refers to a planned EU regulation that would require providers of messenger services and communication platforms to automatically check their users’ private messages for allegedly illegal content – especially material related to child sexual abuse.
Critics, including data protection experts, lawyers, and civil rights organizations, have been warning for years that the regulation would effectively lead to widespread surveillance of private communications. Because encrypted messages would have to be checked before or after encryption, they see this as the end of truly confidential end-to-end encryption.
Dispute over the urgent procedure
However, the real dispute currently revolves less around the content of the law than around its parliamentary handling.
Parliament President Roberta Metsola has approved an emergency procedure to bring “Chat Control” to a vote quickly. However, Martin Sonneborn and Sibylle Berg argue that this procedure is inadmissible, as the European Parliament’s rules of procedure only allow it for legislative proposals at their first reading. “Chat Control,” however, is already at its second reading.
Sonneborn raised this point during the plenary debate in Strasbourg. According to him, his microphone was switched off after exactly 60 seconds.
Sonneborn and Berg had previously informed Parliament President Metsola in writing that such a procedure violated parliamentary rules. Metsola merely stated to the media that the process was being conducted properly according to the applicable rules. A substantive written response to the two MPs was not forthcoming.
Reference to Ukraine draws criticism
To justify the decision, Metsola referred to the emergency procedure that had been used in 2022 when a Ukraine aid package was adopted.
Sonneborn considers this comparison inaccurate. At the time, the Council had given written assurances that it would adopt the European Parliament’s text unchanged. Furthermore, it was an exceptional wartime situation.
In the case of “Chat Control,” there is neither a comparable emergency situation nor corresponding assurances from the Council. Critics therefore see the reference to the Ukraine case as an unsuitable precedent for pushing through a highly controversial law in an expedited procedure.
Voting immediately before the summer break
Additional criticism is directed at the timing of the planned vote.
This is scheduled to take place on Thursday – the last day of the European Parliament’s session before the summer recess.
To stop the emergency procedure or the bill, a qualified majority of 361 members of parliament would be required. Critics fear that many parliamentarians may have already left or are no longer present just before the recess, further raising the bar for rejection.
Sonneborn therefore raises the question of whether the date was deliberately chosen to minimize resistance to the project.
Data protection and fundamental rights at the center
Should “Chat Control” be passed, large communication platforms would have to systematically check the private messages of their users.
Data protection organizations have long warned that this would set a far-reaching precedent. In their view, the European Union would be creating, for the first time, a legal basis for comprehensive control of private digital communications. They also fear that other countries could follow suit.
More than a dispute over data protection
Critics argue that the current dispute now goes beyond the actual regulation.
They also see this as a fundamental question about the working methods of the European Parliament. If parliamentary rules of procedure are interpreted flexibly or circumvented in favor of political goals, and if critical questions from members of parliament are only possible to a limited extent, then in their view this calls into question the democratic processes themselves.
The coming days will therefore likely determine not only how Europe deals with encrypted communication in the future, but also how consistently the European Parliament applies its own procedural rules.
