Opening remarks by Christina Meinecke, Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the European Union, 18 May 2026

Good morning, and a very warm welcome to all of you who join us here in Brussels and participating online. With 100 participants signed up during the course of today, this is clearly a timely discussion which has sparked interest.

Thank you for taking the time to join this expert roundtable to reflect together on the international human rights dimensions of the European Union’s proposed Digital Omnibus.

Let me begin with a simple but important observation.

Digital governance and regulation do not stop at borders. Decisions taken in one jurisdiction, particularly one with the regulatory weight and normative influence of the European Union, increasingly shape laws, institutional practices, and enforcement cultures far beyond that jurisdiction. That is why we have framed today’s discussion in terms of the international aspects.

The UN Global Digital Compact

And it is worth briefly recalling that international context. In September 2024, States met at the Summit of the Future and agreed on the United Nations Global Digital Compact (GDC), vowing to close all digital divides, build an inclusive open, safe, and secure digital space, and govern AI for the good of humanity. Crucially, all UN member states agreed that these efforts must be anchored in international human rights law.

With the current geopolitical backdrop in mind, the breadth and depth of the GDC are truly noteworthy, as is its emphasis on human rights.

That result would not have been possible without the strong support by the European Union and its member states to integrate human rights across the GDC, as an objective, a principle, and as specific commitments and actions across all 5 chapters of the Compact.

Under the Global Digital Compact, States explicitly recognised the need to align digital governance with international human rights law and invited OHCHR to play an advisory role in that process (see para 24 of the GDC).

The Global Scope of EU Digital Law

And through this work, OHCHR has seen firsthand the global reach of EU digital legislation, most notably the General Data Protection Regulation, and more recently the EU AI Act. OHCHR is regularly asked to advise governments that say they are “aligning with EU law”, whether in relation to AI governance, cybercrime legislation, platform governance, or data sharing frameworks.

But alignment does not always mean the faithful replication of safeguards. And what might it mean for those dynamics when the EU safeguards shift?

In many parts of the world, EU laws are actively copied, adapted, and invoked. Sometimes that influence has helped strengthen human rights protections. At other times, we have seen cherry picking, such as copying certain provisions without the safeguards.

And, we should also be clear that EU laws are not perfect. As the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, remarked in his open letter on the EU AI Act, remote biometric surveillance systems such as facial recognition technologies carry serious risks to human rights. As there were derogations to the safeguards in the final text of the EU AI Act, we need to closely monitor how those exceptions play out in practice.

The EU Digital Omnibus

Coming to the EU Digital Omnibus, the proposals also consider elements that are central to contemporary rights protection in the digital age: privacy and data protection, confidentiality of communications, and governance frameworks for artificial intelligence.

Each of these areas is deeply interlinked with a wide range of human rights, the right to privacy, freedom of expression and association, non‑discrimination,

That is why the UN human rights framework should guide national action, and why robust safeguards must underpin any cross-border exchange of information and evidence. This is very relevant in the context of the digital omnibus debate on GDPR because the changes in definition of personal data could mean that the EU privacy rules may stop applying at the point of export. That can mean the usual safeguards for sending data overseas do not apply, which is especially concerning when data is shared with international organisations, including law enforcement bodies.

We must therefore recall how seemingly technical adjustments, for example, around lawful bases for data processing, treatment of special category data, enforcement timelines, or transparency obligations can have systemic effects both within the EU but also when replicated internationally.

In regions already grappling with surveillance overreach, regulatory capture, or weak supervisory authorities, small shifts in European norms can translate into significantly reduced protection on the ground.

Today’s Programme

The idea of today’s gathering is to help identify human rights implications early, to surface international experiences and unintended consequences, and to help ensure that digital governance evolves in a way that genuinely strengthens, rather than fragments, the global human rights ecosystem.

• We will have a session on the proposed changes to e-privacy and the GDPR.
• Another one looking at the EU AI Act, and its global impact.
• And a third session, which follows up directly from our High Commissioner’s recent mission to Ireland and a meeting with the Irish NHRI, where it was agreed that a convening of entities under Art. 77 of the EU AI Act given the important human rights aspects at stake would be key. Thank you to the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) for being our partner in that session.

The discussions are held under Chatham House Rule, and OHCHR intends to publish only general, non‑attributed key messages emerging from the day, focused on lessons-learned, risks, and considerations that may be useful to a wide range of stakeholders globally.

Conclusion

Let me conclude by thanking you again, for your expertise, your openness, and your willingness to engage in this kind of nuanced conversation.

Digital governance choices made today will shape human rights realities for decades to come. Ensuring that those choices are informed by international perspectives, grounded in law, and attentive to downstream impacts is not only prudent, but also necessary.

With that, I very much look forward to the discussion, and I thank you again for your participation.