Strasbourg, 14/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the European Parliament approved at first reading (by 387 votes to 204 and 30 abstentions) the proposal for a directive on telecommunications data retention in the fight against terrorism and organised crime. The text was adopted in co-decision with the Council and in terms comparable to the compromise found early December at Member State level, thus making rapid entry into force possible (EUROPE 9081). Compromise amendments proposed by the EPP-ED and PES and approved by plenary differ in several key points from the proposal for a directive supported by the citizens' freedoms committee (EUROPE 9076). A request for rejection of the text, presented by the Greens/EFA Group and the GUE/NGL Group, received 161 votes out of 602. Alexander Nuno Alvaro (ALDE, Germany), who was displeased with the result of the vote, withdrew his name from the rapporteurs.
The idea of keeping telecom data had been rejected a first time in September by the Parliament, which did not agree to only being consulted on the matter (EUROPE 9036). The Parliament therefore patiently waited for a proposal of directive from the European Commission (1st pillar). “This is a triumph for all Europeans”, President Borrel told the press before adding that “codecision in this field is a precedent”. The chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms, Jean-Marie Cavada, explained that the text gives the Parliament a voice in the chapter on follow up to application of the decision. Speaking as president of the Council, Charles Clarke stressed by the same occasion that “this agreement is no doubt the most important that we have reached among the dossiers handled in the field of counter-terrorism”. Commissioner Franco Frattini, who had launched the proposal for a directive on 21 September, considered when speaking to the press that it was a major victory inaugurating a new method of working together.
The directive covers the data relating to traffic and to relocation generated in the context of telephony, short messaging services and Internet protocols carried out by a suspect over recent months, and would not apply to the content of the information communicated. Although that means that the police authorities of Member States will not have access to the content of communications, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL, Germany) said that the proposal “represents an enormous intrusion into citizens' freedoms”. The Parliament took a stance in favour of all trafficking data to be kept for 6 to 24 months by operators. The countries that wish to go further than this may do so. Barbara Kudryca (EPP-ED, Poland) expressed concern about the fact that “Poland plans to extend this data retention period to fifteen years”. In such a case, the State in question should present a request to the European Commission that will then judge whether or not the request is admissible given the principle of proportionality and internal market principles. Martine Roure (PES, France) welcomed the “restricted scope of the directive on serious offences”. The notion of “serious crime” should, however, be specified by the States. All telephone calls are concerned including those that do not reach destination (the inquiry into the Madrid attacks was able to move forward thanks to investigations carried out using data from calls that did not get through), but only the telecom operators who stock this kind of data will be compelled to hand them over to the investigators. Hélène Flautre (Greens/EFA, France) said the legislation is a danger for the protection of freedoms and privacy, in so far as it authorises retention of traces of all communications. MEPs foresee a provision that provides for criminal sanctions that are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” for operators who fail to store the data or misuse the retained information. MEPs found it was right for the Council to agree to grant access to data retained by telephony operators and internet providers to independent authorities designated by Member States. Access to data should be granted on a case by case basis and with a specific aim in view, which means that the authorities should each time ask the telecom operator to consult data of an identified suspect although the same authorities would not have access to the whole database. MEPs finally decided to do away with the paragraph of the text that compelled States to reimburse telephony operators and Internet providers for costs entailed by retention, storage and data transmission. The Parliament decided to respect the principle of national autonomy by leaving States the choice of who should contribute to the bill. On this subject, British Sarah Ludford (ALDE) deplores the fact that consumers will see prices rise depending on the extent to which telephone operators and internet providers have to face up to the surge in costs linked to data retention.