Features of oversight bodies
backgrounds. In some Member States, the legislation
envisages a legal background for the staff and/or
members of the committees. In a few Member States,
information about the staff’s background and possible
needs was not made available for FRA’s research.
“In principle, we are a committee of legal experts. […] As far
as the secretariat is concerned, the staffing plan determines
which qualifications are required.” (Expert body)
Civil society organisations active in this field mainly
engage lawyers. In some cases, their legal capacity is
supported by technical experts, or certain knowledge
is developed through involvement in the field. Many
organisations have been involved in litigation on
a variety of issues relating to data protection or privacy,
including cases alleging unlawful data processing
by intelligence agencies.
“We need more computer people.” (Expert body)
“One area where we need to get some more expertise is in
the technical field, maybe someone who knows more about
data analysis, algorithms, that need is increasing.”
(Expert body)
“You need someone who has the necessary expertise to
understand specific technical processes. In my view, none
of the members of the [expert body] are so well-versed
in technical matters that they are able to assess complex
situations – in particular situations concerning the [services] on the basis of their own knowledge.” (Expert body)
A few oversight body representatives said they
have legal and technical expertise, and emphasised
the importance of having both. In some cases, this
combination was noted as a recent development.
A few respondents believed that their technical
capacity was sufficient, and no specific changes were
needed. An absolute majority of the interviewees
identified a great, increasing need for technical
expertise, which is currently missing. Representatives
of expert oversight bodies, parliamentary committees
and executive control institutions expressed a clear
demand for technical expertise, which is perceived as
highly advantageous and beneficial for their authority.
The respondents indicated that they believe a lack
of technical expertise will remain one of the biggest
challenges in the oversight field in the coming years.
“Regarding the intelligence services: it is working well for
the moment but the growing technical complexity means
that the DPA will have to increase its technical staff of IT
experts who will be able to provide real technical expertise,
particularly on the protection of data banks.”
(Data protection authority)
The major need for technical exper tise was
acknowledged by oversight bodies and other experts in
the field. During interviews, respondents representing
civil society organisations, practicing lawyers and
academia criticised the oversight bodies’ limited
technical capacity in terms of staff with technical
background. As one respondent put it, ‘with all my
respect, they are not young IT types that you should
have in an organisation as such’. Technical competence
(capacity) was often mentioned by the respondents as
one of the main features of effective oversight.
In terms of having sufficient resources, approximately
two out of three respondents from oversight bodies
expressed satisfaction with currently available
human resources. Comments included that these ‘are
adequate’, ‘as things currently stand, it is remarkable’,
‘at the moment meet the needs’, ‘staff numbers are
reasonably stable’, ‘there is no need to be expanded’, ‘it
is effective because it is not too big’, ‘enough resources’,
and ‘we have what we want’. Examples of these kinds
of assessments were provided in most Member States.
Assessments of the size of the staff differed across
the institutions. For example, some respondents said
oversight can be effective in a small (limited) circle;
others referred to limited resources, an increasing
workload and the complexity of the work (‘the work
has become more complicated and [numbers of]
investigators are no longer adequate’); and some
indicated that they were in the unsatisfactory situation
of being understaffed and said there was a clear lack
of human resources.
“In the past, cases were simple; now they are more complex.
The use of specific methods and appeals have increased, in
technicality and volume.” (Expert body)
“Even though we have not always been fully staffed, public
confidence in our body has significantly increased due to the
greater transparency of our procedures and the decisions we
have made.” (Expert body)
With regard to technical capacities, the respondents
quite often noted difficulties in recruiting technical staff
(ICT specialists) because the public sector is not able to
compete with the private sector in terms of salaries.
According to respondents, the same applies both to the
intelligence services and their oversight.
Among the requirements for staff of oversight bodies,
many respondents mentioned security clearance – the
highest level of confidentiality in most cases – as the
main criteria. Some said that the clearance procedure
does not hinder recruitment and is not a restricting
factor (e.g., ‘an accelerated clearance procedures can
be applied during the recruitment process’). Others said
that it takes time and prolongs recruitment and might
85