Brussels, 11/02/2010 (Agence Europe) - Following an impassioned debate, the European Parliament voted on Thursday 11 February to reject the provisional agreement on the transfer of banking information to the United States by means of the Swift network, as part of the fight against terrorism. The resolution throwing out the agreement, which was tabled by Jeanine Hennis-Plaeschaert (ALDE, Netherlands), was approved by 378 votes to 196, with 31 abstentions. Despite last-minute assurances from the Commission and the Council, the Parliament, with new powers conferred upon it by the Lisbon Treaty, said clearly that it would no longer countenance failure to observe the fundamental liberties of European citizens.
A much criticised agreement. The agreement at issue, signed on 30 November 2009, would have allowed the United States to use European citizens' banking information, transferred by the Swift company, for a period of nine months, under its Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) - see EUROPE 10030. Under the terms of the agreement, Swift, a Belgium-based company which, every day, handles millions of financial transactions, was responsible for transferring to the US Treasury Department information (account number, account holder's name, national identity number and other personal information relating to financial messages) on any person suspected of links to terrorist activities. This information, which is transferred to European authorities, may also be sent to third countries. In terms of assurances, the information may only be used in the fight against terrorism. Unused information is to be destroyed after five years. It is also stipulated that the TFTP bans any profiling of the information. Nevertheless, MEPs decided that there were still too many loopholes in the agreement. When the information requested is not clearly identifiable, all potentially relevant information has to be transferred. Then, information that is of interest may be retained for the length of time allowed the public authority concerned in line with regulations: according to some MEPs, this was tantamount to saying that the information could be stored for up to 90 years. The text also provided for administrative or legal appeals in Europe or the United States in the event of wrongful use of information. MEPs felt, however, that this provision was discriminatory since European citizens do not have the same rights in US courts as US citizens. MEPs also wanted compensation to be paid if personal information was used illegally. They were also highly critical of the Council of the EU for the lack of clarity throughout the negotiations (see EUROPE 10065).
Failed attempted delay. The Council of the EU, the European Commission and the United States provided addition assurances on data protection, and, above all, on closer involvement of the Parliament in negotiations on a long-term agreement (see EUROPE 10074). These, however, failed to persuade MEPs who felt they did not go far enough given the importance of the data protection issues at stake. Fearing that the agreement would be voted down, the Spanish Presidency proposed, the day before the vote, that MEPs delay their decision so that further assurances might be given in future negotiations (see EUROPE 10075). A few minutes before the final vote, this proposal was delivered by the EPP lead on this issue, Joseph Daul (France), who asked Parliament to postpone the vote until March to allow the Commission time to bring forward a new negotiating mandate for the long-term agreement, which is due to come into force on 31 October 2010. New Internal Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström then spoke, promising that she would present this new mandate on 21 February if the Parliament delayed the vote. All was in vain, however. The proposal from the EPP and CRE groups to postpone the vote was defeated by 305 votes to 209, with 14 abstentions, and, a few moments later, Parliament adopted by majority decision the recommendation for rejection of the agreement, as put forward by Hennis-Plaeschart.
Prospects for a new agreement. To long applause, the Dutch MEP had previously strongly argued the case for rejecting the agreement. “At the present time, laws are being broken, and will continue to be broken with this agreement. If we were to ask for US citizens' banking information, I think we already know what the Congress would say!” she said. As soon as Parliament's decision became known, all the political groups gave their reactions. “This is the start of a new era because it is the first time in 50 years that there has been real equality between Parliament and Council,” stated Guy Verhofstadt. The US Mission to the EU immediately expressed its disappointment at the decision, which, it said was a set-back for anti-terrorism cooperation between the United States and Europe. The European Commission, which will be responsible for negotiating a future agreement, said it respected Parliament's decision, though it expressed regret at the loss of a “very useful” instrument in the fight against terrorism. It said that it will now have to reflect, with the United States, on the “possible” negotiation of a new agreement. (B.C./transl.rt)