Brussels, 22/04/2010 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament has been requested to give its point of view on the transfer of air passenger data or Passenger Name Records (PNR) with the US and Australia. In a resolution presented by its rapporteur, Sophie In't Veld (ALDE), the European Parliament asks for the vote to be postponed and calls on the European Commission to present it with a proposal by the summer, which takes its observations into account. Commissioner Cecilia Malmström asked the questions regarding the use of this data, on behalf of the Commission (EUROPE 10118). Parliament was asked by the Council to approve or reject an agreement on the transfer of air passenger data for those travelling to the US and Australia. On 6 May, MEPs will give their opinion on the draft resolution, which is expected to propose a postponement of the vote on this question, so that the standard PNR model can be updated in response to demands from Parliament concerning data protection.
During the debate in Strasbourg, the Spanish secretary of state for European affairs, Diego Lopez Garrido, said that Parliament's position was “responsible and constructive”. The president of the Council agrees with Parliament on three fundamental principles: data should only be used for well-defined objectives; data collection must be done in respect of legislation on data protection and the agreement must contain guarantees and safeguards. Similarly, the commissioner for internal affairs, Cecilia Malmström, praised Parliament's “wise strategy”. She announced that she would be proposing a “PNR package” including an “external PNR strategy” defining the conditions for any agreement with third countries, as well as proposals for initiating agreements with the US, Australia and Canada for a European PNR system.
The Swift case is providing a learning curve: the European Parliament is very aware of its rights following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and appears determined to get its voice heard and raise its objections regarding the use of the agreement by the US. Once again, the principles of necessity of proportionality, as well as assurances for genuine reciprocity (the US has misgivings about sharing the information it extracts from PNR with the Union, Europol and Eurojust) were mentioned by many speakers. Axel Voss (EPP, Germany) immediately declared that mobility requires that data exchange be done rapidly. At the same time, it is necessary to be clear that data must be protected and highlight what exceptions are acceptable in cases of “extreme urgency”. He said that this went beyond terrorism and included “serious crime” (child pornography, people trafficking and the drugs trade) and appealed for a very precise negotiation framework with third countries. Speaking on behalf of the S&D Group, Birgit Sippel from Germany underlined the differences between the PNR and Swift cases - “If Parliament had to vote on the PNR case today, it should say no because this agreement is no good”, she declared. Difficulties are located in the nature of what shared data actually constitutes (she said that the 19 examples of PNR data effectively meant profiling), their possible “bulk” transfer and it being necessary to subject this data to data protection legislation. If the EP rejected the two agreements there would be danger of a legal vacuum being created, pointed out Sophie In't Veld. Postponing the vote appears to her to be a reasonable position to take, if the Commission accepts it in a spirit of cooperation. The resolution establishes a series of principles that have to be respected: proportionality, finality and application of European standards with regard to respecting data requirements. Speaking on behalf of the Greens, Jan Philipp Albrecht from Germany alluded to the film “Minority report”, which depicts a futuristic scenario in which every individual is subject to permanent surveillance. He said that he believed that uncontrolled access to PNR data was unconstitutional. Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR, Poland) added that the transfer of data should be considered as something quite “obvious”, given that its goal was to fight terrorism. Finally, Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL, Sweden) declared that the use of PNR data can sometimes determine who has the right to fly or not, which would be a violation of fundamental freedoms. According to Manfred Weber (EPP, Germany) the EP should be prepared to fight on this dossier as it had done for Swift. In his opinion, the problem is not the absence of data but rather one of ensuring that this data arrives where it is needed. It is therefore necessary to establish an efficient network between the different authorities instead of massively increasing this data. The data should be appropriate, confirmed Slovenian socialist Tanja Fajon, and should respond to objectives that have been clearly defined and completely understood by avoiding any ill-advised use of it (for example trying to find out the religion, sexual orientation or health of an individual). The debate on Swift can perhaps be used as an example for tackling PNR, concluded Diego Lopez Garrido. There should be no “antagonism” between freedom and security; on the contrary, it is necessary to reconcile these two elements, not in the short term but by attempting to find valid solutions for the longer term by ensuring both efficiency and the respect for individual rights. Commissioner Malmström provided assurances that the Commission would immediately set to work on the basis of Parliament's resolution and that she would examine the “general architecture of the information exchange system” more closely. (L.G./B.C./transl.fl)