Brussels, 24/10/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Friday 24 October, EU Home Affairs Ministers debated putting in place a European PNR (Passenger Name Record) system that would allow member states to gather and share passengers' personal data held by commercial airline companies, to help combat terrorism. “There are still differences of perception among member states,” acknowledged French Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie after the meeting in Luxembourg. In November 2007, the European Commission proposed that the EU should, like the United States, have a system for gathering personal data on air passengers as part of the fight against terrorism and organised crime (see EUROPE 9536 and 9537). In July of this year, ministers decided to try to reach agreement on the European PNR in 2009 (see EUROPE 9712), but the delay in the Lisbon Treaty's coming into effect will hold back adoption. In the meantime, member states are pursuing their in depth reflection on the proposal.
Is there a need to wait for the Lisbon Treaty? The current debate on the proposal has been going on for several months and is complicated, the French Presidency readily accepts, particularly because of the differences that remain between those, like the United Kingdom, which want measures to be introduced quickly (under Czech Presidency) and others, like Germany and Sweden, which want to take time to bring all stakeholders, including the European Parliament, on board. These are not fundamental differences, but rather affect the speed of implementation, Alliot-Marie said in a press conference. The current institutional uncertainty, with the delay in the Lisbon Treaty's coming into force, could slow the adoption of this measure, which the commissioner at the time, Franco Frattini¸ thought would be in place in the first half of 2009. Under the Treaty, the European Parliament (EP) will have powers of co-decision on issues relating to anti-terrorist cooperation and the Presidency has undertaken to involve the Parliament in all decisions on European PNR. “There will be no fast-track assessment of this proposal without the EP's right of scrutiny,” said a Presidency source. Apart from the matter of timing, Alliot-Marie noted that there were problems of interpretation among the various member states. These problems relate to the added value of the European PNR project, its cost effectiveness and what it might bring to security given the existing personal data protection constraints, she said, without mentioning the countries involved. “Austria is against PNR in principle because it is calling for its real added value to be demonstrated,” said a diplomatic source. To try to justify the system, Alliot-Marie pointed out that 60-80% of drug seizures carried out at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport were as a result of PNR. Another point pending is related to whether PNR data should only be gathered on passengers from third countries or on passengers taking flights within the EU. Originally, the project presented by the Commission did not involve flights inside the Community. The British and Danes, who already have national PNR systems, want information on passengers flying within the EU to be included in the proposal. To try to find a balance with other less enthusiastic countries, the Presidency has suggested making this provision optional, leaving it to individual member states to decide on the national measures they want to put in place. A rendezvous clause would mean that, after the European PNR had been in operation for a number of years, a decision could be taken on how appropriate it would be to include intra-Community flights.
Reflection must continue. The Presidency will continue to discuss with its counterparts on the main principles to be included in the proposal, such as scope, transmission of PNR data and protection of personal data. A new progress report will be put to ministers at the end of November. On the basis of this report, “the Council will decide whether or not to move on to the next stage,” Alliot-Marie said.
Contents of the proposal. At the present moment, the French Presidency is proposing that data should be retained for a compulsory three-year period, as opposed to the five years contained in the initial Commission proposal, and a further authorised period of seven years for all member states. The “Passenger Information Unit” (PIU) will be responsible for gathering these travellers' data and assessing the risk presented by each passenger. Risk assessment criteria will not be based on race or ethnic origin, religious conviction, political opinion, membership of a trade union, health or sexual orientation. The PNR database will be connected to the API (Anticipated Passenger Information) and SIS (Schengen Information System) databases. The transfer of PNR data to third country authorities will be possible, but only under strict conditions. Several questions remain to be answered, such as the transmission of masses of PNR data to other PIUs or other competent authorities in the collecting member state, access authorisation to data classified as sensitive and the conditions for making the interconnection with the SIS possible. (B.C./transl.rt)