Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-19-Speech-2-626"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101019.25.2-626"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I believe it is against human rights that we are sitting here so late at night discussing important subjects which we should really discuss during the day and not in the middle of the night when normal human beings should relax at home and go to sleep.
We decided we are happy with what the French authorities gave us, but we cannot close the case, because these promises, these elements of law, these proposed laws, are not yet implemented. So we have said that we are freezing the case, but are leaving it open. We are leaving it open until the moment the French Government has really applied this legislation
in day-to-day proceedings.
That is one thing that I think is some kind of a victory. Think about everything which has happened. Now the French will say there is no problem, there never has been any problem. Well, there was a problem and they are bringing us the law which they are going to change. Let us see if they do it. I believe they are going to do it.
There was a second question and that is how the individuals were treated during the summer period, and whether they had procedural guarantees as individuals, as European citizens, or were discriminated against.
Why did I not start infringement proceedings like those we started on the basis of the laws? Simply because if we want to act, we can only act on the basis of legal evidence. We cannot act just because we have a feeling, because we are persuaded something is wrong. We have to have the legal proof and that is why we have asked the French Government to supply us with the dossiers on the individuals.
Now we have got dossiers on individuals, several piles of them. My experts are analysing those and they have told me they will certainly have supplementary questions to the French Government, and they think they will finish this analysis with answers from the government in four weeks’ time.
So, as of today, we have these two cases. This is, I think, a very important fact because I would also like to tell Members very frankly that the implementation of the 2004 directive on free movement is not brilliant. What we are seeing now, because the Commission has been strong, is that all the countries who are not perfect either – not imperfect to the extent of France, but not perfect – are starting to say that they are now going to implement it perfectly.
So something has happened. I think that all Europe has understood that we are not joking any more and that the rights of the individual, of our citizens, and the values of our society must be handled seriously.
That is enough about the French question, because a decision has been taken by the Commission on that matter, but it is not finished and is still an open procedure.
Now to the question on the database allegedly held by the French Gendarmerie and possibly containing ethnic elements. First, the Commission is closely following developments in these matters. We have again been given assurances by the French authorities that everything is all right, but a different system applies here, because there is a French law here on data protection and the handling of data which is checked in accordance with our rules by the French data protection authority CNIL. It is in line with the rules that CNIL has carried out an inspection and made a preliminary public report last week. You have seen CNIL’s results. I have read them too. The way it is reported sometimes in the press is not complete, because CNIL has also said, very seriously, that there might not be ethnic elements, but there are certainly databases which have not been authorised by the authorities.
As regards compliance with EU legislation, the information provided has to make sure that the situation is covered by the Data Protection Directive. This might be the case only for immigration-related purposes. For immigration, there are a series of guarantees and safeguards which apply to what we call ‘sensitive data’. Sensitive data can only be processed in exceptional cases, in cases of public interest; they are subject to suitable safeguards, and those suitable safeguards have to be provided by the country concerned.
Having said that, there have been many debates, many scandals and many actions in the last weeks, and I think this Parliament should look at what has happened in France and the reaction in the European Commission to what was some kind of a historical event. There has never been, so far, in the history of our European Union, a court case started because of rights.
Should the data processing not come under the Data Protection Directive, then the 2008 framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters could apply.
There, we still have a problem because this framework directive applies only as from 27 November this year. So, on the basis of this directive, the powers of the Commission are rather limited.
I will answer the very concrete questions which have been asked in addition to the French case. Are there other Member States where we could verify the possible existence of databases containing data on ethnic or racial origins?
Under the Data Protection Directive, the processing of such sensitive data is authorised by way of exception and has to be notified to the national data protection authorities. The data protection authority in France is CNIL. And these exceptions for reasons of substantial public interest also need to be notified to the Commission.
When such notification is made, the national data protection authority and the Commission are in a position to assess if the measures are in line with data protection rules, and here we have the result of the preliminary analysis by CNIL which clearly says that such authorisations have not been asked for. So, we should allow the judicial work in France to be done by the judicial authorities which are not just authorised, but also responsible, for doing this kind of work.
What about the Netherlands? There were several databases where the processing of sensitive data was provided for and was notified by the Netherlands to the Commission in 2005 and 2006. The most controversial database related to criminal activities of youngsters of Caribbean origin. This database has since been deleted.
Recently, one municipality in the Netherlands planned to create an ethnic file, but it cancelled its project in response to the recommendation of the Dutch data protection authority. This shows that the system under the directive – whereby the data protection authorities, the national data protection authorities, are responsible – works.
By the way, I would like to tell Parliament that I am working on the reform of the Data Protection Directive, partly with the aim of reinforcing the independence and the intervention opportunities of the national data protection authorities within a European framework.
That will have to be that for the time being: I have to shorten my speech because there is no interpretation after 24:00, so let us cut it off there.
We have started court cases because of commerce, because of the economy, because of finance, but this is the first time, on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon and on the basis of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is included in this Treaty of Lisbon, that the Commission has said enough is enough.
The Commission decided – all 27 Commissioners – on 29 September to start infringement proceedings against France on the basis of non-implementation of those rights of the human being, the rights of the individual citizen.
I do not need to tell you all the pressures which have occurred since that moment, but the Commission said unanimously that it will start court procedures and will put an ultimatum to France. If France has not answered in a positive, acceptable way before 15 October, this court procedure is going to be implemented. That is the normal way we proceed with all Member States.
Now, what has happened? Well, France has given an answer. And this was the first time, it was unique in terms of the way questions are handled, and I believe personally that it was the first moment of the European of the Citizens.
Let historians one day look at that. We are in the middle of the proceedings, we are in the middle of the fight, so we might see it from a different point of view.
Now, objectively, what has France done? France has done exactly what the Commission has asked it to do. Under the 2004 directive, there are material rights, we also call them procedural rights, which exist for the sake of protecting citizens against an unacceptable action by the authorities when they are imprisoned. And these procedural rights have not been implemented in French law. So we said to France: by 15 October, we need to know the ways in which you intend to change French law implementing the 2004 procedural rights and showing us a credible timetable of how you are going to introduce that into French law.
Well, we got it. We got it one hour before the end of the deadline, but we got it. Since 08.00 on Saturday morning, my experts have been looking at the papers and I have come to the conclusion today that all the points on the basis of law which the Commission asked for from France have been answered – though, of course, not yet applied in national French law, because first they have to go to the Senate and then be introduced
into French law and applied in real terms."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples