Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-179"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.5.3-179"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The Commission’s representative – Mr Bolkestein, I believe – mentioned at one point the issue of whether Parliament might not take a positive view of the Commission's actions. I am just as incapable as my fellow MEPs of expressing such a positive view. The idea of doing so strikes me as being something of a bad joke, since such energetic kow-towing to unreasonable demands on the part of the American authorities has rarely been seen. The big picture in this matter is, of course, specifically the United States’ relations with the surrounding world.
What we are discussing here and now bears no direct relation to the use of military technology to kill other peoples, but it is all part of the same picture. The demands put forward by the American Government are clearly inconsistent with the legal requirements derived from current legislation, first and foremost Directive 95/46/EC on the principles of data protection. As is apparent from quite a few of the statements put forward by the Article 29 Group, the heart of the matter is that this data is not merely to be used in the interests of air safety, but for the purposes of what is referred to in the United States as public order, that is to say as a component part of the United States’ war against terrorism conducted under the banner of the end justifying the means. There are, however, a number of legal principles involved here that we cannot dispense with, and the Commission’s efforts to uphold these legal principles are pitiful.
What is described in the paper from the Article 29 Group is certainly alarming. Data is passed on not merely to immigration authorities but to other federal bureaux. It is, then, no longer specifically protected, as it ought to be according to American legislation.
I might add one question and one answer. The question, raised by the Commissioner, was as to whether this matter could be sorted out using a comitology procedure. That would be absurd. In my view, the matter necessarily revolves around an agreement pursuant to Article 24 – cf. also Article 38 – of the Treaty on European Union, which unfortunately means that Parliament is made redundant since it has no influence upon decisions of this kind. All the more reason, then, for informing the public in advance."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples