Brussels, 13/07/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Friday, the Commission gave its unconditional support for the agreement recently sealed with the United States on the transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNRs), despite violent criticism voiced by the European Parliament. 'It's a good agreement for Europe and for Europeans”, Jonathan Faull, the director general at DG Justice, Freedom and Security, told the press. European and American negotiators concluded a PNR agreement on 28 June valid for seven years, in the context of the third EU pillar (unanimity). It is still to be approved by several national parliaments (EUROPE 9457 and 9458). “I do not expect them to refuse”, Mr Faull said. EU ambassadors should look at the text on 19 July before it is finally approved on 23 July by the foreign ministers. The European Parliament approved in plenary, on Thursday 12 July, a resolution that casts serious doubt on the content of the agreement which, in their view, does not give citizens sufficient protection when it comes to private data (EUROPE 94657). Following the procedure required by the Court of Justice, the Court has not been directly involved in negotiating the agreement, which, Mr Faull says, is “regrettable”. The European data protection supervisor had also deplored the result of these negotiations (EUROPE 9460).
Jonathan Faull nonetheless defended the agreement at length. Although negotiations are “difficult”, the agreement allows for both security and protection of individual data. He was willing to recognise that the agreement did not have unanimous backing on some points but “that is the agreement the EU has signed. I don't mind if people criticise it; what is done is done”. Although it is true that, generally speaking, the new agreement leaves a greater margin of manoeuvre for US authorities when it comes to the use of passenger name records, the director of the DG nonetheless clarified certain points of the text that could be wrongly interpreted. First of all, Europeans have managed to reach an “international agreement” of a “binding nature”, something that the US did not want initially, he said. Concerning the retention of data, there has not been a “jump from 3.5 to 15 years” but only to 7 years, allowing the United States to effectively fight terrorism, Mr Faull stressed. This was one of the main arguments upheld by the American fact-finding committee on the attacks of 11 September. Beyond the 7-year limit, data becomes “dormant” and may be kept for another 8 years with the possibility of restricted access. After that period, data should be deleted, but the United States has already said it wishes to look at the matter again. Regarding the use of sensitive data, which already exists in the current agreement, Mr Faull sought to be reassuring, saying: “The data is that which the airline company receives. Americans will never recover what passengers have not told the company (trade union membership or sexual leaning)”, he affirmed. On the other hand, data on health - “a plaster can conceal a weapon” - or culinary preferences may help to determine who a person really is when that person is under suspicion. The head of the DG said he agreed with the possibility given by the United States to share data with third countries, “as long as the Americans stick to the rules laid out in the agreement”. By way of conclusion, he pointed out that the EU also hoped to have a PNR system at European level. “We are considering a proposal (…) Ideas will be put forward in the second half of this year”, he stressed. This system “will not be identical” to that set up with the United States although for practical reasons the data fields may be the same, Mr Faull said. This system should also be restricted to combating terrorism and organised crime. (bc)