Brussels, 12/10/2006 (Agence Europe) - The agreement sealed between the EU and the United States on 6 October on transferring information on air passengers travelling to the United States (EUROPE 9281) was received with criticism at the European Parliament. During the debate on this subject at the mini-plenary session on Wednesday afternoon, the Socialists, Liberals and Greens in particular expressed considerable concern about the new agreement, saying it does not provide sufficient guarantees that citizens' fundamental rights will be protected. Martine Roure of France, spokeswoman for the PES Group for justice and home affairs, said that the transfer of information to other US counter-terrorism agencies poses a problem if appropriate guarantees are not imposed. She called for European citizens to have right of appeal before a court of law if such information is misused.
Speaking on behalf of the ALDE Group, Sophia in't Veld of the Netherlands expressed concern about the fact that the US Department of Homeland Security seems to have a “completely different interpretation” of the agreement. The Commission and the Council assert that the new agreement covers exactly the same personal data as the earlier agreement and that the level of protection of this data is exactly the same as before. But, Ms in't Veld asked, how can one explain that the Americans themselves say in a letter that, in addition to combating terrorism, the agreement will also allow data to be collected to combat infectious diseases and other risks. Also, the sharing of data has been enlarged to include other US agencies involved in fighting terrorism, but whose exact nature has not been specified, she added.
Sylvia Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL of Germany) said that the EU had “no cause for celebration” now that the agreement has been signed. “Of course”, she deplored, “we now have an agreement and chaos has been avoided, but the cost is high as the EU has completely capitulated to US demands”. Henceforth, several US agencies will have access to passenger data through the US Department of Homeland Security, including the FBI and CIA, “an agency, whose activities of torturing and kidnapping this House is investigating in a special committee, will have access to passenger data. It is a scandal!” Ms Kaufmann exclaimed.
British member Sarah Ludford (ALDE) highlighted the same point - the fact that the CIA would have access to the data. “Commissioner Fratini declares that this passenger information cannot reach the CIA. But this appears to be contradicted by the US letter which says data can be passed to 'authorities exercising a counter-terrorism function' (…). European citizens' expectations that their hard-fought for rights to data protection would not be squandered have been betrayed”, Ms Ludford said. Michael Cashman (PES, UK) sought to bring things into proportion, saying that, if EU citizens want to travel to the United States or cross the American airspace, Americans can put the bar as high as they want. It is their government, their democracy and their legal system, he pointed out. That is why, he continued, Europe should negotiate to defend its interests and its laws on data protection. He welcomed the agreement saying that Europeans should also understand and respect American concerns.
Johannes Voggenhuber (Greens, Austria) recalled that, until the ruling of the Court of Justice annulling the first agreement, the transfer of data to the Americans was “unlawful”. “This is not just a legal formality, it is grave intervention in our fundamental rights that should make us think”. The new agreement that the Commission has just brokered with Washington is built on a legal base (intergovernmental cooperation) which “rules out all public debate, all possibility of participation and control on the part of the European Parliament, national parliaments and even the Court of Justice”, deplored Mr Voggenhuber, concluding that the “new agreement is the legal extension of the illegal transfer of data”.
Brian Crowley (UEN) does not share the criticism. He said: “I agree with the deal. It think it's a good deal in general and better than the previous deal, but there are still requirements for further clarity on it”. Among these points to be clarified, Mr Crowley mainly cited the possibility of action and appeal for European citizens should the information be misused by the American authorities. (hb)
European Parliament Plenary Session (cont.)