Brussels, 08/01/2015 (Agence Europe) - MEPs on the European parliament's civil liberties committee (LIBE), still shocked by the terrorist attack in Paris on Wednesday 7 January (see other article), failed to reach agreement at a hearing on Thursday on whether or not to call for a fresh directive on the retention of personal data from the Commission, the first, adopted in 2006 to tackle terrorism, having been annulled by the Court of Justice in April of last year.
In discussing the opinion of the parliament's legal service, several MEPs expressed doubts as to the usefulness of such instruments. “I don't think we need more data”, said Birgit Sippel, (S&D, Germany). “Other security issues need to be considered”, she felt, wondering if the Commission had checked the legality of the national measures, existing or new, in force in the member states after the annulment of the 2006 directive. Sophie in 't Veld (ALDE, Netherlands) said that it was easy to say “that a measure is proportionate and necessary but proof of this is needed” and that was precisely where legislators had failed so far.
Axel Voss (EPP, Germany) suggested that consideration had to be given “to the political solution that we want. Do we want data retention or not? Given the threats and the deteriorating situation, we cannot lose sight of that”. He went on: “Of course, we have to think about the limits to be put on retention and also ask ourselves if we are securing the trust of the people”. However, he suggested: “Yes, we have to make use of this opinion to say that we need data retention”.
The opinion of the Parliament's legal service highlighted a number of important points: it said that the ruling of 8 April did not in itself invalidate the other European instruments that are based on data retention, these enjoying a presumption of legality; however, all these instruments may be examined, for example, under the European e-privacy directive which articulates with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. They may then be deemed illegal, as may national laws based on the now dead 2006 directive. The legal service does not suggest how this compliance check might be carried out, though it seems possible that any citizen or organisation can refer to the courts any provisions the legality of which they doubt (our translation throughout). (SP)