Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-09-Speech-3-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050309.19.3-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, I will not repeat the questions that we sent to you. On the other hand, it is worth restating that last year, in April 2004, the European Parliament rejected the agreement negotiated between the Council, the Commission and the United States and referred the matter to the Court of Justice. I would also remind you that Article 7 of Directive 95/46 provides an exhaustive list of circumstances in which personal data may be processed. These authorisations must be understood as being laid down by Community law or by the national law of a Member State, and not by the law of a third country.
Do you not think that, in the absence of an opinion from the Court of Justice, and in view of the European Parliament's negative opinion, the automatic transmission of passenger data to the US authorities violates European citizens' right to protection of their private lives? I would remind you that the US authorities cannot guarantee the level of data protection that we require in Europe and that we also ask of other third countries such as Australia and Canada. In particular, we have no way of knowing who has access to these data.
The issue should be settled with respect for fundamental rights and in line with the principles defined by the European Parliament. Thus, we need to define what data can be transferred automatically and what data can be transferred on a case-by-case basis. We would like the list of serious crimes for which an additional request can be made, the list of authorities and agencies that can have access to the data and the data protection conditions that must be met to be determined. We would like to know for how long these two types of data will be kept. We know, of course, that data relating to the prevention of serious crime must be exchanged in accordance with the EU-US agreement on mutual legal assistance and extradition. We would like to satisfy ourselves that passengers will be guaranteed the ability to correct data relating to them. Do you think, Commissioner, that the transfer of data complies with the principles of finality and proportionality advocated by the Article 29 working party?
Moreover, we would like to have assessments and figures and to know the results of this practical experience. Finally, do you not think that it is all the more urgent to deal with the issue of data protection under the third pillar, with a framework decision? An initiative has been proposed by France, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden regarding a draft framework decision on data retention, and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs is also currently working on it. We would like to know, Commissioner, whether you support this? What, in fact, are your plans with regard to data protection? Do you want to put forward your own proposals? We in the Civil Liberties Committee need to know the legislative basis on which we have to work, and we would be grateful if you could answer all these questions precisely."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples