Brussels, 01/02/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the German EU Presidency announced that it expected negotiations to be “extremely difficult” with the United States on the new transatlantic agreement on transmission of personal data of air passengers.
After an interim agreement sealed last October between the EU and the USA in the name of counter-terrorism, all air companies flying towards the USA are under an obligation to give passenger name records to US customs 15 minutes before take-off. Data includes 34 points in all: telephone number, credit card, email address, etc. (EUROPE 9281). Failing the conclusion of a new agreement by 31 July 2007, any air company forwarding passenger data to the US is liable to legal prosecution in EU member countries, which could also cause the cessation of air links to the USA. “Negotiations will be extremely tortuous, because the US is not interested in greater data protection”, said German Deputy Foreign Minister Guenther Gloser during the European Parliament's plenary session. Gloser said one must assume that the United States is going to back-pedal when it comes to data protection. The European Commissioner for justice, security and freedom, Franco Frattini, recommended that the Council - which is responsible for conducting negotiation - should demand “total respect” of the right to privacy, a principle that he himself considers “not negotiable”. The Commission forwarded its recommendation with a view to renegotiating the agreement to the Council end December. At present, the Council is looking at the proposal at the level of Coreper with a view to accepting a new negotiating brief that will most likely be finalised at the ministerial meeting on 12 February (GAER/CAGRE Council) or that on 15 and 16 February (JHA Council). On that basis, official talks will begin.
Commissioner Frattini announced, too, that he wanted the implementation of a trans-Atlantic framework agreement, containing “clear rules” on protection of personal data. Such “legal certainty” would be a necessity, for banks too, he stressed, referring to the Swift case. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the US bank transfer company Swift was required to supply data in its possession on financial transfers to the US Treasury (see EUOPE 9318). In November 2006, European data protection authorities considered that Swift had infringed European privacy law by giving the US authorities access to personal information (see EUROPE 9313). Mr Frattini, who called for explanations from the 27 member states, said on Wednesday that he had, at that point, only received seven responses and that that did not allow him to draw general conclusions for the moment. Mr Gloser said that discussions were currently taking place with US authorities, and that the Council was not, at the moment, in a position to respond to the questions on this matter.
MEPs, who were awaiting the Council and Commission explanations with impatience, once again expressed their great concern over what would happen to the fundamental rights of European citizens in the context of close cooperation between the EU and the US on combating terrorism.
“Who can believe that these data will only be used to combat terrorism?” asked French MEP Pervenche Berès (PES). While welcoming the Commission's action on Swift, she could only deplore the relative weakness of the results until now. In much more scathing fashion, Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE, France) said, “Frankly, without wishing to underestimate you, Mr Gloser, the least that can be said is that your comments on this matter were dramatically disappointing. I feel able, then, to point out that you have been mandated to defend European sovereignty, something of which I have so far seen little evidence. We are, you will understand, disappointed and above all worried”. Speaking on behalf of the EPP-ED group, Mihael Brejc (Slovenia) called on member states to strictly adhere to all the values of the EU. Martine Roure stressed the urgent need to define a “global framework for data protection”, and also in the European framework covering the transfer of financial data in the first pillar. On PNR, Dutch MEP Sophie In't Veld (ALSE) raised the issues of air companies activating the push system (see EUROPE 9281), and of air passengers' right to effective information on the use of their personal data for security purposes. Her compatriot Kathalijne Buitenweg (Greens/EFA) warned the Council and Commission not to give in to what she considered to be “blackmail” from the US. The Americans had to be convinced to step back and give up on their excessive scheme if they wanted to have an international impact, said Portuguese MEP Carlos Coelho (EPP-ED, chairman of the temporary committee on alleged illegal CIA activities. Fearing the appearance of other types of PNR or Swift, Alexander Radwan (EPP-ED, Germany) came out in favour of a discussion “at G8 level” (the G8 is currently chaired by Germany). Mr Gloser said he was prepared to consider such a possibility. Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL, Germany) clearly wanted to know why no answer had come from the US to support the Automated Targeting System (ATS). Belgian Philip Claeys (ITS) opposed the comments of his colleagues, believing them to be for the most part an over-simplified view of these issues. Although the aim of this agreement was to combat terrorism more effectively, Mr Frattini, by way of an answer, once again stressed the need for “a fair balance” to be found between the need for security and the necessary protection of fundamental rights. Indicating that he backed joint political action, he told MEPs that he would keep them “politically” informed on PNR negotiations currently being held with the US, without, however, going into detail, given the requirement for confidentiality provided for by the treaty on international negotiations. He also told MEPs that he would call for a “reduction in the amount of data” to be supplied to the US authorities. He said it was the principle of usefulness that should prevail, if it is considered that “it is likely 19 pieces of data are useful”, compared with the 34 required. In the same way, he felt it was very important, and without prejudicing the fight against terrorism, to set out how long the data would be retained, who would have access to them and how such access would be justified. Mr Frattini even suggested that, in the event of an agreement, every aeroplane ticket purchased could be accompanied by a document to be signed by the passenger, which would inform him/her about the data which would be put at the disposal of the US authorities. Finally, he pointed out that the ATS system, used in the US, complied with the agreement on the transfer of air passenger data signed in October (see EUROPE 9331). (bc)