Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-175"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.5.3-175"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, I will focus on procedure first: you say it is not a question of a legislative act, a Community act. The problem is that it seems to us at least possible that that act, those joint statements – first the February ones and then the March ones – give rise to legal effects, actions, exchanges of data and information that have taken place because of those meetings and those statements.
The joint statement issued by the two parties in February already mentions the fact that the most sensitive data should be – and are – processed in accordance with European Union legislation. This statement is also an assessment of the data transfer procedures, a conclusive assessment; it has legislative force and, indeed, serves to legitimise an exchange of data that already exists. The same is true of Paragraph 4 of the Commission recommendation to the national data protection authorities, according to which it is not necessary to take enforcement measures against airlines that are not complying with the United States’ requests. This is another recommendation that has legislative force and effect: the Commission is saying ‘Do not intervene!’ regarding those airlines that are transferring data in compliance with US legislation.
I therefore believe that there is at least the possibility and the suspicion that this act should be considered a legislative act, against which Parliament can appeal to the Court of Justice. I also believe this procedure might help the Commission and the European Union themselves to strengthen their own position in a dialogue that should be conducted on equal terms, between parties of equal rank, between a market of 250 million people and a market of 350 million people, because we have to consider very seriously the fact that, right now, collecting these data and transferring them to the United States cannot be in compliance with Community law.
Contrary to what the Commission said in the joint statements, the collecting of data that is intended for commercial purposes and the subsequent use thereof for security or intelligence purposes constitutes in itself a breach of the principle of necessity and the principle of proportionality laid down by Community law. This, in fact, creates a situation of so-called generalised surveillance, which is definitely against Community law, and not just might be or something we must check up on to see whether it contravenes the law.
What is needed, then, is to open formal, official negotiations to see what agreement, what compromise can be found, but it is not possible to resolve the issue pre-emptively by thus attributing
legitimacy to a transfer of data that has already begun. This is why Parliament must continue down this road, and I also believe it will strengthen the Commission and the Community institutions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples