Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-06-Speech-3-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070606.18.3-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, police and judicial cooperation is a priority for the European Union in order to fight more effectively against organised crime and international terrorism. We are in agreement about that. More police cooperation, however, entails an increased exchange of data between the competent authorities in the Member States.
In conclusion, I wish to remind the Council that it made a first political commitment for the swift adoption of this text in December 2005 during the discussion about the retention of data. Today, I can say that the European Parliament has great hopes: the Council will keep its promises.
The European Union must, however, allow a level of protection of the right to privacy that is at least comparable to that guaranteed in the context of the first pillar. That will make it possible to strengthen the principle of mutual confidence which is the cornerstone of police and judicial cooperation. Indeed, if all the competent authorities know that the data they receive is completely reliable and that the data they transfer is protected in the same way as in their own countries, they will not hesitate to exchange information. This joint discussion is therefore positive.
I regret, however, that the Council has not included the need to link the adoption of the framework decision on data protection and the tools for sharing data such as the second generation Schengen Information System (SISII) or the Visa Information System (VIS). In fact, as we have said on numerous occasions, for the European Parliament, it will be impossible to take further the discussions about new exchanges of data without legislation at European Union level regarding data protection.
That is why I deplore the way in which the Prüm Treaty was negotiated and concluded, outside of all the existing instruments at European Union level. We are, of course, very pleased that the German Presidency has allowed it to be incorporated into the competences of the European Union in order, particularly, to ensure democratic monitoring by the European Parliament. Even so, it is not acceptable for consultation with us about this Treaty, which has clear implications for the protection of the right to privacy for European citizens, to have been rushed. The Prüm Treaty includes some provisions concerning data protection, but these are still not sufficient. The adoption of the Prüm Treaty should also be subject to the adoption of the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar.
Having said that, I should like to thank the German Presidency for its efforts to overcome the deadlock over the framework decision on data protection within the Council. I very much appreciated the very constructive contacts I had with the Ministers, Mr Schäuble and Mr Altmaier, and I should like to thank them. I wish also to thank the Commissioner, Mr Frattini for his helpful support.
What we can agree on is that the framework decision is a first step for data protection in the third pillar and must not, under any circumstances, allow a level of protection less than that guaranteed by Convention 108 of the Council of Europe and its protocols.
I hope that the Council will emphasise our compromise proposal concerning the scope of the framework decision. In fact, an assessment in three years will, as Mr Frattini has said, enable us to give practical evidence of the need to extend the scope to data processed at national level.
I recall also that it is absolutely essential for Parliament to tackle the issue of access and management of data by private persons. We are absolutely committed, also, to the need to establish an adequate level of data protection for all transfers to third countries. To be more precise, it is not a matter of setting up a list of countries where the level of data protection is appropriate. It is not about that, but rather about establishing the adequacy of data protection case by case.
The German Presidency recognised our legitimate concern through the adoption of a policy statement attached to VIS. This specifies that the Council is continuing to give priority to the adoption, as soon as possible, of the framework decision on data protection, by the end of 2007 at the latest."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples