OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V.

GFF

The Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

17 Oct 2025 · NGO-Workshop

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

17 Oct 2025 · Europagruppe Grüne: Austausch mit NGOs

Meeting with Terry Reintke (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

17 Oct 2025 · EU Initiatives for Civil Society and Democracy

Meeting with Rasmus Andresen (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. and

17 Oct 2025 · Europaworkshop

Response to European Research Area (ERA) Act

5 Sept 2025

Researchers are still often obliged to publish in paywalled journals, as legal uncertainties and institutional barriers hold them back from making their work available in open repositories. This continues to hinder access to the latest research, stifling innovation and progress across Europe. Existing secondary publication rights policies are limited by a lack of ambition and harmonisation at the EU level, and institutions lack clarity regarding the implementation of rights retention policies, which leads to hesitation and risk aversion. Necessary Solutions A harmonised, EU-level Secondary Publication Right is essential to provide researchers with timely and unrestricted opportunities to make their results openly available. Legislation should also make it explicit that no laws may block rights retention initiatives, whether at the national or EU level. Research Exceptions and Project Barriers Research projects are still hampered by uncertainty regarding what is permissible under current research exceptions, by the outright absence of such exceptions, by the exclusion of collaborative research, and by a lack of harmonisation across borders. What is required is a mandatory, flexible research exception that covers both individual and collaborative, cross-border research, providing legal certainty and supporting dynamic, modern research practices. Institutional and Contractual Challenges Research institutions continue to face the undermining of research exceptions through restrictive publisher contract terms and by technological protection measures that block lawful research uses. Contracts often include terms that would be unacceptable in agreements with individuals, or otherwise place unreasonable restrictions on institutions, creating a chilling effect due to liability fears. Key points for improvement include: Extending contract override provisions as well as practical measures for removing or circumventing technological protection measures. Examining the extension of rules on unfair contractual practices for consumers (and workable remedies) to research and education institutions, in order to shield them from exploitative policies. Introducing liability limitations for research institutions that cannot be overridden by contract, based on successful examples from other jurisdictions. These interventions are necessary to remove legal uncertainty, strengthen Open Access, and to ensure that Europe can fulfil its potential as a hub of scientific innovation and excellence.
Read full response

Meeting with Jutta Paulus (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

6 Jun 2025 · Delegationsklausur, Treffen mit Interessensverbänden

Meeting with Erik Marquardt (Member of the European Parliament) and Germanwatch and

6 Jun 2025 · Austausch im Rahmen eines Events der Europagruppe Grüne

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

6 Jun 2025 · Delegationsklausur

Meeting with Terry Reintke (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Apr 2025 · Democarcy and the Rule of Law in the EU

Meeting with Hannah Neumann (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Apr 2025 · Exchange on European regulation of the illegal use of Spyware

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Jan 2025 · Digital commons and digital policies

Response to Delegated Regulation on data access provided for in the Digital Services Act

9 Dec 2024

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Delegated Regulation. From a civil society perspective, a robust and clear implementation of the provisions on research data access in Article 40(4) DSA is essential to ensure that researchers have legally secure access to platform data. Data access under the DSA is not an end in itself but a milestone in granting researchers secure access to platform data, thereby unlocking the potential to increase transparency and democratic control of digital discourse spaces through research.
Read full response

Meeting with Sergey Lagodinsky (Member of the European Parliament)

22 Nov 2024 · Exchange of views

Meeting with Birgit Sippel (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Nov 2024 · Reporting obligations for people without papers

Meeting with Věra Jourová (Vice-President) and

10 Jun 2024 · Elections and disinformation

Response to Amending of temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC for combating online child sexual abuse

9 Feb 2024

Die GFF verteidigt Grund- und Menschenrechte mit rechtlichen Mitteln. Dafür arbeiten wir neben strategischen Gerichtsverfahren auch mit juristischen Interventionen wie zum Beispiel Studien, Stellungnahmen und Gesetzesentwürfen. Im Kontext der Verordnung 2021/1232 (im Folgenden: Übergangs-VO) unterstützen wir derzeit ein gerichtliches Verfahren gegen die Praxis, private Nachrichten beim Facebook Messenger zu durchscannen. Diese Praxis, so wie die Übergangs-VO selbst, stellen sich aus unserer Sicht als rechtswidrig dar. Wir sind insbesondere davon überzeugt, dass die Verordnung in entscheidenden Punkten gegen Artikel 7, 8 und 11 der Grundrechte-Charta (GRCh) verstößt. Der vollständige Text der Stellungnahme findet sich im Anhang als PDF-Datei.
Read full response

Response to Implementing Act on transparency reports under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act)

24 Jan 2024

I. Introduction The Digital Services Act (DSA) will take full effect from February 17, 2024. One major achievement of the DSA consists of new obligations for providers of intermediary services, hosting services, online platforms as well as providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines to submit transparency reports regarding their content moderation practices. As the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. (GFF), we seek to strengthen and help enforce user rights under the DSA through advocacy and strategic litigation. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX and its annexes, which lays down templates concerning the transparency reporting obligations of providers of intermediary services and providers of online platforms under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council. II. Draft Implementing Regulation Recital 5: Recital 5 introduces a potential inconsistency in terminology by using "publish" in the first sentence and "shall make available online" in the second sentence. To enhance clarity, we recommend using a consistent term throughout. Considering the context, using "publish" consistently for both actions would eliminate any ambiguity regarding the intended actions related to transparency reports. Recital 8: We would like to draw attention to the use of the term "biannually" in Recital 8. While the term has traditionally universally been understood as "every six months," there is a growing ambiguity in its meaning, with some individuals associating it with a frequency of "every two years." To enhance clarity and avoid potential misinterpretations, we recommend reconsidering the use of the term "biannually" in this context. Instead, we suggest employing precise language, such as "every six months," as explicitly defined in Article 41 of Regulation 2022/2065. Recital 8 and 9: We suggest aligning reporting cycles for all platforms to promote consistency. The regulation could recommend or require matching time frames for both annual and biannual reports. If needed, the initial report for very large platforms could cover a shorter period to sync with common reporting cycles like January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31. Article 1 (2): Article 1 (2) lacks clarity on the responsible entity for making transparency reports publicly available. We advise against using passive voice and recommend specifying the acting entity in the Regulation. Article 2: There appears to be a discrepancy between Article 2 (1) and Article 2 (2) regarding the alignment of reporting cycles, as mentioned in the corresponding recital. We recommend ensuring consistency between the articles to avoid confusion. Additionally, in Article 2 (3), the term "shall make the reports publicly available" introduces a different term compared to "publish" used elsewhere in the regulation. To maintain clarity, we suggest using a consistent term throughout the regulation, preferably "publish" if it accurately reflects the intended action. Annex II Part I, Nr. 4: We note that Part 1, Nr. 4 of Annex II refers to the CSV standard RFC 4180. However, RFCs are typically not considered standards in the strict sense. We recommend rephrasing the requirement to accurately reflect widely accepted specifications for CSV such as RFC 4180. Part II, 1. Qualitative Template In Part II of Annex II, Nr. 1, Category labels 1c, 2f, 3e, 4d, 5g, 6d, 7e, 8c, 9e, 10e, 11g, 12d, 13c, 14f, and 15f are all designated as "KEYWORD_OTHER" While this may reflect distinct categories, using the same label across different categories could potentially cause confusion when these terms are employedas identifiers. We recommend considering unique names for clarity and to avoid any potential misunderstanding. We also note that certain categories of illegal content listed do not necessarily correspond to content that is in fact illegal under national or European law
Read full response

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament)

23 Jan 2024 · Implementation of the DSA

Meeting with Tiemo Wölken (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Deutscher Richterbund, Bund der Richterinnen und Richter, Staatsanwältinnen und Staatsanwälte

23 Mar 2023 · Anti-SLAPPs Directive

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament)

31 Jan 2023 · Grundrechtsbindung im Digitalen