Commission’s “No comment” on Telegram CEO’s arrest: “French case”

Brussels – The European Commission chooses the line of silence and is entrenched in the customary “no comments.” The arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov is a French matter and remains so; this is the line expressed by the EU executive. “It is not related to the Digital Services Act (DSA),” clarifies the chief spokesperson for the community executive, Eric Mamer, who then adds peremptorily, “The French authorities arrested him on the basis of French criminal law.” Hence, the choice of not intervening in an affair that is not considered communitarian but national.

The charges brought against Durov are diverse: child pornography, drug trafficking, and possible participation in computer crimes. The charges against the Russian businessman with French, Emirati, and Nevisian citizenship are serious, and “it is not for the Commission to comment,” Mamer insists. The press, however, is insistent, asking for clarification on whether there may be national security reasons. The fundamental question is whether the EU executive can have a say in counter-terrorism matters. The answer here is evasive: “The Commission cooperates with the member states on counter-terrorism.”

Very specific questions are being raised about terrorism. The court case involving the founder and CEO of Telegram leads one to suspect that there is something more to the charges officially brought by French authorities. The social platform has come under criticism from many quarters for its use in support of Russian rhetoric and propaganda. It has allegedly become a “megaphone of Moscow,” and some see, starting with France, a political move. It is difficult for the Commission to respond because terrorism is not a formalized charge. It becomes very delicate for Brussels to interfere with the country’s choices and publicly challenge the work of French investigators.

Moreover, national security is, by definition, a matter of national competence. There is a European definition of “terrorism” embedded in the counter-terrorism directive of 2017. It is a principle rather than a definition, in the sense that it is a very general description of possible potentially dangerous “acts” that, ultimately, each state remains free to determine for itself whether committed to seriously intimidate a population or unduly compel a government or international organization to perform or refrain from performing an act, or seriously destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic, or social structures of a country or international organization. That is, if they are acts that meet the notion of terrorism within the meaning of the directive. 

However, journalists in the room ask: Has it become so simple and dangerously arbitrary to determine who the good and bad guys are? The Commission has not answered this question. It merely assures that there is no doggedness on the part of the EU against Telegram, which, Mamer points out, at present, from the information gathered, “does not appear” to be a big platform under DMA, the European digital markets laws, and therefore “is not under direct Commission surveillance but is monitored by individual states.” On the rest, mouths are sealed. French justice is tasked with handling the Durov affair.