Strasbourg, 07/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - With the adoption, on Tuesday, of seven recommendations on combating terrorism, and the rejection of an eighth text, the European Parliament fully set out its point of view in a sector on which it is only consulted, without its opinions being binding. It is through rejecting an initiative - devoted to telecom data retention - that the European Parliament makes its voice heard. The initiative submitted by France, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom covers crime in the broadest meaning of the world, including terrorism. It is intended to make it an obligation for telecom operators to keep track of telephone and internet communications, namely data on who has contacted whom since when, but will not allow the content of communications to be recorded.
Rapporteur Alexander Nuno Alvaro (ALDE, Germany) convinced the plenary that it should reject the initiative and call on these countries to withdraw their draft. Rejection covers questions of law and substance. The rapporteur considers that the “legal base chosen by the Council is not conform to European legislation” because it is only based on legal cooperation (third pillar, Parliament only consulted) and not on the obligation that data should be kept by service providers, that it considers comes under Community law (first pillar, codecision). On substance, the rapporteur considers the proposal excessive and calls on Member States to prove in an irrefutable manner by a survey that data retention, as foreseen, is a “necessity”. During the debate, many speakers evoked data retention. Thus, Angelika Niebler (CSU), speaking on behalf of the research and industry committee, stressed that the EP had “still not received an answer” from the Council to justify the degree of data retention proposed in the text. “Storage must be justified, not only towards citizens but also towards enterprise”, she stressed, calling for an independent survey to be carried out on the cost/profit ratio of the measure.
Given that the EP had followed its rapporteur and rejected the initiative, the dossier has been referred back to the parliamentary committee on citizens' freedoms. If the EP does not give its opinion - which at any rate is not legally binding - after a certain time the Council may adopt it regardless. While the European Commission is preparing a proposal to rival that of the Council (to be based only on the first pillar, it states), MEPs hope, however, to put pressure on the Council with this vote, so that it agrees to share decision-making with it, it is explained at the European Parliament. During the meeting of 2 June, the Council had decided to move forward “stage by stage, beginning with the telephone, with transitional periods for calls that have not got through, and the internet”, the president-in-office of the Council, Luc Frieden, pointed out. Diplomatic sources say such advances are still fragile. Germany, Finland and Austria are the most reticent, considering that the project will cost operators too much. The dossier will be back on the Council's agenda for its informal meeting early September.
Seven recommendations for European policy against terrorism
The seven recommendations adopted by the European Parliament on Tuesday relate to the European Union's action plan against terrorism, information exchange, the protection of vital infrastructure and the funding of terrorism.
A report by Spanish Socialist Rosa Diez Gonzales on the EU's action plan against terrorism, that the European Council will be updating on 16 and 17 June, calls for the creation of a special unit under the responsibility of the European Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, Gijs de Vries, to help victims of terrorism not only by promoting their rights but also by taking in and informing victims. On the other hand, the EP rejected the idea of convening a European forum to give a voice to the victims. It also rejected the proposal put forward by the rapporteur requesting that terrorism be part of the crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The EP, however, calls for an international definition of terrorism to be adopted.
The report by Jaime Mayor Oreja of Spain (EPP) on the prevention of and response to terrorist attacks states the “European Anti-Terrorism Coordinator should have the resources to coordinate the immediate response to each attack”. The report places emphasis on the exchange of information, dialogue between cultures and religions, and strengthening of Europol and Eurojust.
The report by Greek Socialist Stavros Lambridinis calls on the Council to adopt a European programme for the protection of vital infrastructures in the event of a terrorist attack - which is already foreseen by the EU's action plan against terrorism.
The report by Mario Borghezio of Italy (Lega Nord) called for the fight against the funding of terrorism to be stepped up, particularly by adopting minimum common standards "so that charitable organisations have to show greater transparency, (...) by using only official bank accounts to deposit money and regular paths to transfer funds".
Three reports by former Belgian interior minister Antoine Duquesne (ALDE) stressed the importance of exchanging information related to terrorism and organised crime. The report recommended the adoption of a code of best practice for police officers. This code "will remove the objections" which are "often used as an excuse" not to co-operate, the rapporteur told the plenary.
During the debate, MEPs stressed the importance of information exchanges and the protection of fundamental rights, many of them calling for liberty not to be impinged upon in the name of the fight against terrorism. Speaking for the Presidency, European affairs minister Nicolas Schmit replied that Europe is "constantly involved in this balancing act, preserving rights whilst standing firm against those who wish to call them into question". "We cannot give up on certain methods such as storing information", he said, stressing the extent to which terrorists are using modern communication methods.
The Dutch MEP Sophia in't Veld (ALDE) pleaded for assurance that the measures already adopted are being applied before any new measures are proposed. European Commissioner Franco Frattini also criticised the member states, saying that only Denmark and Hungary have applied all measures adopted since 11 September 2001. Mr Frattini pointed out that the Commission was to present a proposed European programme for the protection of critical infrastructure later this year.