Index 
 Précédent 
 Suivant 
 Texte intégral 
Procédure : 2016/2727(RSP)
Cycle de vie en séance
Cycles relatifs aux documents :

Textes déposés :

B8-0623/2016

Débats :

PV 25/05/2016 - 18
CRE 25/05/2016 - 18

Votes :

PV 26/05/2016 - 6.6

Textes adoptés :

P8_TA(2016)0233

Débats
Mercredi 25 mai 2016 - Bruxelles Edition révisée

18. Flux transatlantiques de données (débat)
Vidéo des interventions
PV
 

Președinte. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarațiile Consiliului și Comisiei referitoare la fluxurile de date transatlantice (2016/2727(RSP)).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bert Koenders, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, Madam Commissioner, the Presidency attaches great importance to a free, open and secure internet. This issue is therefore an important one to me. In the digital age it is well known that personal data are of great value because of the information they contain. They enable businesses to personalise their offers to consumers and law enforcement authorities to track down criminals. Data flows offer economic and social opportunities. At the same time, the sensitive information that personal data contain needs to be protected in order to protect our privacy.

It is key to ensure the public’s trust in data flows: trust that is based on a proper framework of protection. Of all transfers of personal data outside the European Union, the transatlantic flow is by far the most important one, be it for commercial or law-enforcement purposes.

It is in the interest of the Union and its citizens that the European Union/US privacy shield ensures this certainty and trust, especially after the Schrems judgment by the Court of Justice of last October. This has shown there is legal uncertainty in this area of vital importance for the transatlantic economy. It is also important for European medium-sized businesses, as they are dependent on this adequacy decision – for lack of other instruments – to ensure safe data transfers to the United States. The Commission should fully take into account the Court’s ruling on the safe harbour regime. The new adequacy decision must provide a level of data protection that respects the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Treaties, as well as the standards set by recent case law. Strong safeguards are the key to restore the public’s trust when it comes to transatlantic data flows. The Council trusts the Commission to ensure the highest possible data protection standards, including clear and directly-applicable principles such as purpose-limitation, rights of the data subject to access and correct their data or to object against the processing, and an effective system of oversight-enforcement and redress of possibilities.

Furthermore, the Council supports the efforts of the Commission in working with the United States on improving some aspects of the privacy shield and hence ensure a legally and politically sustainable framework. In that regard I believe, for example, that bulk collection by the United States should only be acceptable under certain circumstances. In that same spirit I welcome the creation of the position of an ombudsperson as an additional mechanism for the handling of complaints submitted by citizens. For the transatlantic transfer of personal data for commercial purposes, the Council considers that the Commission should adopt its adequacy decision on this new transatlantic framework in a speedy manner while ensuring data protection rights.

The Council also welcomes the agreement reached in the negotiations between the Commission and its United States counterparts. We are confident that the ongoing internal negotiations on the side of the Union between the Commission and national administrations will lead to a positive outcome, thus paving the way for the new framework to enter into force.

As regards data protection in the area of criminal law enforcement, the Council aims at adopting a decision to sign the Umbrella Agreement in time for the agreement to be signed on 2 June at the EU/ US Justice and Home Affairs ministerial meeting in Amsterdam. Shortly thereafter the Council will ask the European Parliament’s consent to conclude the agreement.

The agreement does not provide a basis for the transfer of personal data across the Atlantic but will enhance cooperation between the European Union and the United States by setting common data protection standards in this area. This is good news from the European perspective, as the US commits to respecting higher standards than in the past when receiving personal data from Europe, and I think that is very necessary. Thus the agreement will significantly contribute to restoring trust in transatlantic data flows for the purpose of fighting serious crime by adding a supplemental layer of data protection requirements on both the Union and the United States.

The Council considers that the agreement represents a clear improvement to the current situation, notably as regards judicial redress, where the US has so far for the first time agreed to extend such rights to EU citizens. This means an EU citizen can now benefit from equal treatment and will have the same judicial redress rights as US citizens. That is why we hope that this Parliament will share our positive assessment of this agreement.

The European Union has a great interest in facilitating smooth and safe transfers of personal data to the US that ensure the respect of our citizens’ fundamental rights, both in the commercial and in the law-enforcement area. For example, an EU citizen’s name is identical to that of a suspect in a transatlantic criminal investigation. Their data has been transferred from the EU to the US and erroneously gets collected and included on a US blacklist. The EU citizen now has the right to request their name to be deleted by the authorities. To give you another example in the area of commercial data flows, the privacy shield will offer a significantly-enhanced system of oversight and enforcement, which will enhance the credibility of the system. In the law enforcement area, we will be able to offer strict data protection requirements as well as basic rights to access and correction to our citizens in all instruments covered by the scope of the Umbrella Agreement.

Therefore, we hope that the Commission will soon take a decision on the EU/US privacy shield that fully respects the data protection acquis and which will be good for business as well. We are also confident that the Umbrella Agreement is a step in the right direction, as it strengthens legal safeguards for our citizens and enables effective transatlantic cooperation to fight serious crimes.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr. President and honourable Members of the European Parliament, Mr Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to be here again to speak on the important topic of transatlantic data flows. As you know, the Commission has been working on several fronts to restore trust in transatlantic data flows following the Snowden revelations in 2013.

The key measures include the adoption of the EU data protection reform, the Umbrella Agreement for data exchanged for law enforcement purposes, and the new EU-US Privacy Shield to ensure a higher level of data protection for commercial transfers of personal data.

The EU-US Privacy Shield arrangement is essential for the continuation of transatlantic data flows while guaranteeing our citizens the fundamental right to the protection of their personal data. We negotiated the Privacy Shield with the US on the basis of two sets of guiding principles. First, our 13 recommendations of November 2013 and, of course, the criteria set by the Court of Justice in the Schrems ruling. Following two years of talks, I am convinced we have overcome the weaknesses of the old Safe Harbour system.

Let me briefly summarise the main improvements. First, US companies receiving personal data from Europe will have to comply with stricter rules on how to use and read that information, and their compliance will be monitored closely and proactively by the relevant US authorities.

Second, individuals will have access to a number of redress mechanisms to ensure that any complaint will be properly investigated and resolved.

Third, we have received written commitments and assurances on the limitations and safeguards when personal data are accessed by US public authorities. This concerns in particular the sensitive area of national security. More specifically, the US Government has assured us that bulk collection will be used only in exceptional circumstances and that even then it applies filters and other technical means to minimise the data collected. We have received an explicit assurance that there is no mass or indiscriminate surveillance. It is the first time we have obtained anything like this from the US side. It is a crucial and central element that makes for a more robust framework than the Safe Harbour ever was.

Fourth, as part of the Privacy Shield framework, the US Government will for the first time create an ombudsperson mechanism that will ensure that complaints or enquiries from EU individuals on national security access are addressed in a timely manner. I believe that this too is a major and unprecedented achievement, and again, nothing remotely comparable existed under the old Safe Harbour. This will apply to all transatlantic data transfer be, they under the Shield or under the modes of transfer.

Finally, once put in place, the privacy issue will be continuously monitored, in particular through an annual joint review. During this process, we will check that the various oversight and redress mechanisms are operating effectively, and we have formulated clear conditions for suspending our adequacy decision in case commitments are not met by the US or answers given in the annual joint review are not satisfactory.

As you know, the independent data protection authorities brought together in the Article 29 Working Party issued their opinion on the Privacy Shield on 13 April. They have welcomed the positive elements in the shield and the improvements compared to the Safe Harbour. But they have also voiced some concerns and recommended further improvements.

We take this expertise very seriously, and we are now working on the more critical aspects and are adapting the adequacy decision accordingly. Some of these recommendations can only be addressed in agreement with the US Government, and we are in discussions with them on those points.

That includes, for instance, clarifying the independence and functioning of the ombudsperson mechanism and making more explicit the principle of limited data retention. This is an important exercise if we want our data protection authorities, individual consumers and companies to have full confidence in the new arrangement. The Member States support us in this approach, and we trust that our US counterparts also realise the importance of these further clarifications.

Once we have reached the necessary qualifications and improvements, we will then submit the draft to the Member States in the Article 31 Committee. Our target remains to have the framework up and running by summer.

That brings me to the other important file which will soon be submitted to the European Parliament for its constant: the Umbrella Agreement. This agreement seeks to ensure the protection of personal data exchanged between the EU and the US for the purpose of law enforcement cooperation. The signature of the Umbrella Agreement is expected to take place at the EU-US Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial meeting in Amsterdam on 2 June. Parliament will be asked for its consent before the Council can decide to conclude this agreement.

I seek your support for the Umbrella Agreement as it will bring clear improvements to the protection of personal data transmitted in the course of transatlantic law enforcement cooperation compared to today’s situation. As you know, the Umbrella Agreement is not an agreement that authorises data transfers, nor is it an adequacy decision. Rather, it adds the necessary data protection safeguards to existing transfer agreements between the EU or its Member States and the United States or where transfers are carried out based on national law.

Many of these existing instruments for law enforcement cooperation with the US have no – or very few – data protection safeguards. This is the unfortunate status quo that the Umbrella Agreement seeks to tackle. Without the Umbrella Agreement, this unsatisfactory situation would continue for many years to come.

Where personal data of US persons are transferred to Europe, they already profit from the high level of data protection afforded by other rules, be it at EU or national level. Therefore, the Umbrella Agreement aims at rectifying the existing imbalance of protections on both sides of the Atlantic. This way, the agreement will also restore trust in transatlantic data transfers.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Axel Voss, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Herr Minister! Frau Kommissarin! Eine Nachfolge von „Safe Harbor“ ist dringend notwendig, und insgesamt halte ich auch den Datenschutzschild für einen großen Schritt nach vorne mit vielen Verbesserungen.

Der politische Streit im Haus bezog sich am Ende nur noch auf die „sunset clause“ und wir haben uns eigentlich in der Mehrheit darauf geeinigt, keine zu übernehmen, und deshalb erwarte ich, auch von den Kolleginnen und Kollegen von den Liberalen und von der S&D, dass auch die Änderungsanträge der Grünen und der GUE nicht mit unterstützt werden. Eine „sunset clause“ ist aus meiner Sicht aber auch überhaupt gar nicht notwendig, weil wir eben einen starken jährlichen Überwachungsmechanismus haben, der die sogenannten Left-overs dann auch stetig beseitigen kann. Sie ist nicht notwendig, weil wir einen dauerhaften, stabilen und rechtssicheren Rahmen brauchen, und sie ist auch nicht notwendig, weil das diese jährlichen Überprüfungen am Ende auch überflüssig machen würde. Wir sollten meines Erachtens auch abwarten, dass dieser neue Mechanismus überhaupt erstmal funktioniert, bevor er überhaupt wieder gestoppt werden kann, und letztlich geht es eigentlich nur um das Misstrauen gegenüber der Kommission, dieses Verfahren vernünftig zu begleiten. Ich glaube aber auch, dass die Kommission hier ihre Lektionen gelernt hat.

Die Forderung nach einem Datenschutzschild sind meines Erachtens auch politisch lächerlich, weil man sich einfach nicht entscheiden will, reicht Datenschutzschild oder reicht er nicht, und man hat dann damit eigentlich eine gewisse Orientierungslosigkeit. Es ist aber wichtig, dass wir unseren Unternehmen, KMU und Start-ups auch eine gewisse Rechtssicherheit versichern, konkreten Rahmen für transatlantischen Datenverkehr bieten, und deshalb würden wir den Datenschutzschild unterstützen. Wenn aber die Änderungsanträge drin sind, wird die EVP dagegen stimmen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Josef Weidenholzer, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Frau Kommissarin! Dieses Thema beschäftigt uns hier sehr lange. Wir haben eigentlich kontroversiell immer wieder über „Safe Harbour“ diskutiert in den unterschiedlichsten Formationen, und es bestand immer eine Unsicherheit, die letztlich eigentlich erst durch die Klage eines Bürgers geklärt wurde, und dieses Schrems-Urteil ist in die Geschichte eingegangen und hat uns gezeigt, dass es sehr wichtig ist, dass wir Unsicherheiten beseitigen.

Der Privacy Shield versucht, diese Unsicherheiten zu beseitigen. Sie haben uns im Februar die Grundzüge vorgestellt, und es ist eindeutig zu attestieren, dass es Fortschritte gegeben hat, dass wir auch im Einklang mit der Rechtsprechung hier mit den amerikanischen Partnern gewisse Dinge klären konnten. Ich glaube, dass es aber nach wie vor eine Situation ist, wo wir immer noch Unsicherheiten haben, wo wir noch nicht so wirklich die ganz großen Klarheiten haben, und das bedeutet natürlich auch wieder das Risiko, wieder vor einem Gericht zu landen. Das wäre für unser Image als Gesetzgeber, als Exekutive nicht unbedingt positiv, und es ist auch für die Industrie nicht positiv.

Wir – der LIBE-Ausschuss – waren in den USA letzte Woche, und wir konnten sehen, dass es ein großes Verständnis für die europäische Position gibt, dass es in den USA den Willen gibt, den Grundsätzen der Rechtsprechung entgegenzukommen. Das gilt für staatliche Stellen genauso wie für die Daten-industrie. Ich meine, man hätte mehr erreichen können, aber ich glaube, dass diese Entschließung die Kriterien festlegt, die sehr wichtig sind. Wir brauchen mehr Klarheit, vor allem wenn solche Formulierungen verwendet werden wie „schriftliche Zusicherung“ welchen Rechtscharakter hat das, wir brauchen eine Klarheit über die Ombudsperson. Das war nicht so eindeutig, was wir da gesehen haben, und auch der judicial redress, der so wichtig ist, sollte auch unter diesem Gesichtspunkt gesehen werden, ob nicht auch die Formulierung „nur für EU-Staatsbürger“ nicht ausreicht, weil wir auch Drittstaatsangehörige in Europa haben, die von der Grundrechtecharta geschützt werden. Also diese Unsicherheiten gilt es zu beseitigen.

Es ist wichtig, dass wir diese Abkommen haben, auch das Rahmenabkommen ist ein großer Fortschritt, denn alleine hätten wir nichts erreichen können. Wir können das nur gemeinsam. Aber ich appelliere an Sie, wirklich diese Unklarheiten zu beseitigen, sonst haben wir eine neue Diskussion mit einer neuen Marke, die heißt dann irgendwie…

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Helga Stevens, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Mijnheer de voorzitter, trans-Atlantische gegevensoverdracht is van essentieel belang voor onze economie, veiligheid en handel. Met het Privacy Shield halen we nu een nooit eerder bereikt niveau van gegevensbescherming.

Het is een erg grote stap in de goede richting. De rechten en de rechtsbescherming van EU-burgers bij gegevensoverdracht naar de VS gaan er enorm op vooruit. Sommige politieke groepen en parlementsleden blijven echter vinden dat slechts een kopie van het Europees recht kan volstaan. Maar dit is gewoonweg niet realistisch.

De Verenigde Staten zijn een onafhankelijke natie en belangrijke strategische bondgenoot van de EU, maar we mogen niet vergeten dat ze geen lid zijn van de Unie. Uiteraard moet de Europese Commissie bekijken hoe het Privacy Shield de hoogst mogelijke standaard kan bieden. De nieuwe regels moeten ook een mogelijke toets door het Hof van Justitie kunnen doorstaan, zodat onze bedrijven en kmo's niet in een situatie van rechtsonzekerheid verkeren. Ik en mijn fractie geloven sterk dat het zowel voor onze bedrijven, de Europese economie als de privacy van de EU-burgers het beste is om zo snel mogelijk over een operationeel Privacy Shield te beschikken.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to start by echoing the last words of Mrs Stevens that we want to have an operational privacy shield as soon as possible. The problem is that this privacy shield is very unlikely to be operational. We are here today thanks to a young man called Max Schrems who was stubborn enough to litigate before the court for many, many years and to do what the EU institutions should have done, namely stand up for the interests of the EU citizens. Because I recall that this House has called repeatedly for the repeal of safe harbour and the Commission did not move, so it took one Austrian student to make sure that safe harbour was repealed.

Now I am not the least bit convinced that things like written assurances or an ombudsman or a review are going to do the trick. My doubts are shared and in different wordings by Working Party 29, Working Party 31, the EDPS and various legal experts. So I do not understand why we have to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. We have a responsibility and a duty to make good-quality legislation and here it seems to me that the Commission is ready to take a decision knowing that it will not stand up in court. This is not about making political compromises – you know, maybe I could agree with Mr Voss or maybe not – that is all not relevant. There is only one yardstick: is this, yes or no, Schrems-proof? And I am not yet convinced that it is. It is an improvement, it is a step forward, and I am glad that the Commission is willing to discuss further adaptations, but ultimately this is also about the US getting access to a market of 500 million consumers, so they too have an interest in moving.

Finally, we did not say anything about the umbrella agreement in the resolution, we will come back to it, but I would really like two things. I would like, first of all, for the European Commission, before we talk about giving consent or anything, to finally declassify the reply it gave to the question of LIBE about the legal status and the scope of the umbrella agreement compared with other legal instruments – really give us this information. This is only a legal assessment, how secret can it be?

Secondly, the Commission itself has clearly stated that removing the exemptions to the Privacy Act in the US is a precondition for the umbrella agreement to be valid. We all know that those exemptions are not going to be removed, so can somebody please explain to me how we can realistically expect the umbrella agreement ever to apply – please clarify this for me.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Damen und Herren! Ein „Safe Harbor“ wird dadurch nicht besser, dass man es Privacy Shield nennt. Schaut man sich diesen Schild, welcher unser Grundrecht, das Grundrecht von 500 Millionen Menschen hier in der Europäischen Union auf Privatheit schützen soll, da entpuppt sich dieser Schild als ein Schild aus Pappmaché, der beim ersten Regen aufweicht.

Es ist schon schlimm, dass es eines EuGH-Urteils bedurfte, um Safe Habor zu kippen. Und nun konterkariert die Kommission mit dem, was sie vorgelegt hat, unter dem freundlichen Beifall der hiesigen großen Koalition ebendieses Urteil. Nicht einmal zur Forderung einer „sunset clause“ konnte sich die Mehrheit dieses Hauses durchringen, das wäre das Mindeste gewesen. Denn alle in diesem Raum wissen doch sehr genau, dass das neu verpackte Abkommen gar keinen Vertragscharakter hat und gesetzlich nicht verankert wird. EU-Bürger können sich zwar an einen Ombudsmann wenden, aber wie John Kerry höchstpersönlich uns in Annex III wissen lässt, wird der Ombudsmann weder bestätigen noch verneinen, ob irgendjemand das Ziel von Überwachung ist, und er wird auch kein Rechtsmittel benennen. Da hätte die US-Regierung auch einen Anrufbeantworter als Ombudsmann bestellen können! Meine Damen und Herren, es geht um Grundrechte von 500 Millionen Bürgern und es kann nicht sein, dass wir dies mit einem Kotau vor einem allzu großen Bruder tatsächlich opfern! Das darf nicht der Stil aufgeklärte Demokratien sein, und ich finde, dazu sollten wir uns auch deutlich ausdrücken.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the Commissioner and his team have worked hard to achieve this result on the EU—US Privacy Shield. They have also worked hard to achieve the result on the umbrella agreement and, yes, there is progress. But let us be honest, on the EU-US Privacy Shield: what is in there is no significant improvement on the ground with regard to safe harbour. Yes, several issues have been clarified, but no, the legal system of the United States has not changed, and this is actually what the European Court of Justice has said: the legal system does not provide for adequate safeguards. And yes, we know – let us be honest – that those changes will not come tomorrow. We will not achieve that now.

So the question is: while we are lining up all the criticism with regard to the insufficiencies which are out there, do we say: yes, there needs to be renegotiation in the future; yes, there needs to be re-opening of these files, because we are not there? Or are we saying: no, everything is fine, everything serves for adequate safeguards and we just will vote for it and for the future it will stand, although the Court may take it down again? I think that is dishonest. So the only honest action at the moment would be to set a sunset clause to limit the validity, and that is what we are bringing forward for this resolution. I am a bit surprised that the other Groups are not able to accept that. In order to be even more pragmatic on this, we have changed our amendment to a validity of 4 years. That is enough time for a new administration to renegotiate and it is enough time after the application of the Data Protection Regulation to renegotiate. So therefore I ask you all to agree to this.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tiziana Beghin, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, a chi appartengono i dati personali che gli europei trasmettono negli Stati Uniti con Google, Facebook o Instagram? Che garanzie hanno i cittadini che la loro privacy non sia sistematicamente violata? Nessuna.

Infatti negli Stati Uniti il governo è libero di disporre dei dati degli stranieri come di un bene in suo possesso, utilizzabili a suo piacimento anche dai servizi segreti per "profilazione" e schedatura. Questi dati non sono un bene di scambio, sono la vita dei nostri cittadini, e la Corte di giustizia europea l'ha ribadito, stracciando l'accordo in vigore.

Io vi ricordo, colleghi, che fino a poco tempo fa i telefoni di questo Parlamento, le nostre email, i cellulari dei nostri presidenti erano spiati dagli americani, questo è il rispetto per la privacy degli europei. Il nuovo accordo sui dati che la Commissione vuole firmare con gli Stati Uniti non prevede alcuna proposta realmente vincolante, è un insulto alla sentenza della Corte e a migliaia di cittadini che si fidano delle istituzioni europee per proteggere la loro privacy, ma certo la Commissione non vuole problemi per il TTIP, che aumenterà esponenzialmente il traffico di dati transatlantico.

Ora chiedo ai miei colleghi se queste sono le premesse su cui intendono firmarlo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος ( NI). – Κύριε πρόεδρε, ένας από τους μεγαλύτερους κινδύνους που έχει δημιουργήσει στον σύγχρονο άνθρωπο η ραγδαία εξέλιξη της τεχνολογίας είναι η υποκλοπή των προσωπικών δεδομένων από τις ιστοσελίδες κοινωνικής δικτυώσεως και η επεξεργασία τους από μη εξουσιοδοτημένα άτομα. Ιδιαίτερα στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες ο κίνδυνος αυτός έχει λάβει τεράστιες διαστάσεις, διότι η ίδια η νομοθεσία επιτρέπει στις υπηρεσίες πληροφοριών, τη γνωστή μας CΙΑ και την Υπηρεσία Εθνικής Ασφαλείας, την ΝSA, να συλλέγουν, να επεξεργάζονται και να διατηρούν τέτοιου είδους πληροφορίες, πολλές φορές για χρονικό διάστημα μεγαλύτερο της πενταετίας.

Μάλιστα, στο όνομα του εθνικού συμφέροντος των ΗΠΑ οι υπηρεσίες αυτές μπορεί να συλλέγουν και να επεξεργάζονται πληροφορίες όχι μόνο Αμερικανών, αλλά και υπηκόων άλλων κρατών, στα ίδια τους τα κράτη μάλιστα. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, όμως, παραβιάζονται τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, καταστρατηγείται το δικαίωμα της προστασίας των προσωπικών δεδομένων, δυσχεραίνεται η διεξαγωγή του ηλεκτρονικού εμπορίου και επιπλέον δημιουργείται μία νομική αβεβαιότητα σε επιχειρήσεις και φυσικά πρόσωπα.

Για αυτόν τον λόγο η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να λάβει τα ενδεδειγμένα μέτρα, ούτως ώστε στον διάλογο με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες για τη ρύθμιση των όρων της «ασπίδας προστασίας» της ιδιωτικής ζωής να επέλθουν οι βελτιώσεις εκείνες που θα εξασφαλίσουν την προστασία των δεδομένων των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών που έχουν εμπορικές δραστηριότητες με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες.

(Ο ομιλητής δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με «γαλάζια κάρτα» (άρθρο 162 παράγραφος 8 του Κανονισμού))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Ebben a mai vitában többször elhangzott, hogy az adatoknak a speciális helyzete kívül helyezi az adatok védelmét és mindennemű jogszabályt és eljárásmódot a normális kereskedelmi áruforgalomhoz képest, bár a normál kereskedelmi forgalomban ismerjük a lopás és annak következményei kérdését. Vajon ebben a mostani egyezményben Ön szerint megvannak-e azok a garanciák, hogy az adatoknak a helytelen kezelése szintén büntetőjogi kategóriába kerül?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος ( NI), απάντηση σε ερώτηση με «γαλάζια κάρτα». – Κύριε Szanyi, βεβαίως πρέπει να επιβληθούν κυρώσεις, όμως προηγουμένως θα πρέπει να ληφθούν όλα εκείνα τα μέτρα τα οποία θα αποτρέψουν να εκτραπούμε προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση.

Άρα, λοιπόν, απαιτούνται και τα δύο. Και προσπάθεια να μη φτάσουμε σε αυτό το σημείο, αλλά όταν γίνει παραβίαση προσωπικών δεδομένων, ναι, πρέπει να έχουμε και κυρώσεις

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Mijnheer de voorzitter, trans-Atlantische datastromen zijn de grootste ter wereld. Er wordt maar liefst vijftien terabyte per seconde uitgewisseld tussen Europa en de Verenigde Staten: ontzettend belangrijk voor onze economie. Onze samenleving digitaliseert in hoog tempo en juist in deze sector liggen onze kansen voor de toekomst.

Het juridische vacuüm en de onzekerheid die vorig jaar ontstonden hebben tot veel onrust geleid. Zeker bij de vijfduizend bedrijven die gebruikmaakten van de voormalige Safe Harbour-regels, maar vooral ook bij het midden- en kleinbedrijf, de ruggengraat van onze economie die juist in dit soort situaties bijzonder kwetsbaar is.

Het nieuwe Privacy Shield moet dan ook twee vliegen in één klap slaan. Enerzijds natuurlijk het beschermen van de gegevens van onze burgers, maar anderzijds, en zeker zo belangrijk, het geven van een stukje rechtszekerheid aan onze bedrijven die gebruikmaken van die trans-Atlantische datastromen.

Ik ben blij met het werk dat de Europese Commissie verricht heeft, de voortgang die vandaag ook door veel mensen hier gewaardeerd werd en zeker ook met de toezegging die commissaris Jourová vandaag deed om de komende weken ook aandacht te besteden aan de resterende aanbevelingen van de Working Party 29. Onze oproep is eigenlijk heel simpel: zorg dat er deze zomer een goed Privacy Shield is, waar Europese burgers zich veilig bij voelen en waar het bedrijfsleven mee vooruit kan.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, na semana passada, integrei a delegação da Comissão LIBE aos Estados Unidos e encontrámos surpreendente recetividade de todos os nossos interlocutores, em especial das grandes empresas tecnológicas, em relação ao regulamento geral sobre a proteção de dados, recentemente aprovado por pressão deste Parlamento, reconhecendo que se trata de um quadro de regulação global sem paralelo, através do qual conseguirão desenvolver atividades e oferecer serviços com respeito pelos direitos fundamentais e mais segurança jurídica.

São estes os parâmetros para avaliar o escudo de privacidade acordado entre a Comissão e os Estados Unidos. É de extrema importância nesta era digital, que não é apenas de economia digital, reforçar confiança e segurança nas trocas transatlânticas de dados e garantir a empresas e cidadãos segurança jurídica, assente num quadro legal robusto, em regimes de proteção de dados equivalentes e menos vulneráveis à utilização criminosa, o que, claramente, ainda não acontece nos Estados Unidos.

Nessa medida, reconhecemos o importante trabalho da Comissão Europeia, desde o chumbo por parte do Tribunal de Justiça no Caso Maximillian Schrems, do regime anterior Safe Harbor para negociar este Privacy Shield e o acordo-quadro.

Não obstante, persistem sérias dúvidas, sérias reservas, quanto à compatibilidade com o Direito primário europeu e a Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais, tal como exigido pelo Tribunal de Justiça.

É preocupante que os meios administrativos e judiciais de recurso sejam excessivamente complexos para um cidadão comum, além de não serem facultados a cidadãos não europeus residentes na União Europeia, em discriminação, portanto, dos seus direitos fundamentais. Por outro lado, as violações não são penalizadas de forma suficientemente dissuasora.

Tal como muitos dos nossos interlocutores americanos, temos também sérias reservas quanto ao facto de o Provedor não ter um estatuto com a indispensável independência da administração.

Além disso, a atual versão do acordo ainda permite a recolha de dados em larga escala, embora direcionada, contra critérios da necessidade e da proporcionalidade prescritos na Carta Europeia de Direitos Fundamentais.

É do interesse das autoridades, das empresas, dos cidadãos europeus, americanos e outros criar um regime legal, coerente e estável. Precisamente por isto, este Parlamento deve explicitar reservas, estas reservas, exortando a Comissão e os Estados Unidos a aplicarem as recomendações do Grupo de Trabalho 29, a fazerem revisões periódicas de adequação deste instrumento à luz do novo regulamento geral sobre a proteção de dados e à luz da decisão sob o Caso Maximillian Schrems, e também a prosseguir o diálogo transatlântico para superar deficiências e melhorar a proteção dos direitos dos cidadãos.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, Uniunea a adoptat deja mai multe acorduri care se referă la schimbul de informații, de la urmărirea banilor care finanțează organizații teroriste sau registrul cu numele pasagerilor. Scutul pentru protecția datelor personale va ajuta mediul economic, luând, mai ales de pe umerii celor mici, întreprinzătorilor mici și mijlocii care derulează afaceri transatlantice, povara unor costuri birocratice mari. La cererea Uniunii Europene, Statele Unite au adoptat o serie de reforme ale programelor de supraveghere prin care se interzice, între altele, colectarea în masă a datelor, se protejează viața privată și libertățile civile ale persoanelor din afara Statelor Unite și se garantează căi legale de atac pentru cetățenii Uniunii.

Trebuie să recunoaștem aceste progrese și să punem în aplicare cât mai repede prevederile acestui scut pentru protecția datelor personale. Este necesară o evaluare a modului în care se aplică și această evaluare, sunt convinsă, va duce la o protecție și mai puternică a datelor personale, dar haideți să începem să îl punem în aplicare! Evaluăm și îl facem mai bun, altfel nu avem nimic.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerard Batten (EFDD). – Mr President, we are voting on this resolution because the Commission is holding talks with the USA regarding the transfer of private citizens’ data. The motion calls for stronger data protection arrangements between the EU and the USA. Commercial companies have contracts with their customers, which include provisions on how their data may be used. Governments have no such contracts and they may enact legislation regarding the use of personal data which does not have the direct consent of its owners. Therefore, governments should treat the use of such data with the greatest respect and utmost caution. There are particular concerns about sharing data with the USA, which has reduced protection of its own citizens’ data under legislation such as the Patriot Act and which is never a respecter of foreign nationals’ rights. Therefore the UK Independence Party’s MEPs will vote against this resolution on the basis that any legislation should remain the prerogative of the democratic nation state.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Ratspräsident, Frau Kommissarin, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Will man transatlantischen Datentransfer oder will man ihn nicht? Ich bin überzeugt davon, dass wir den Datentransfer in die USA brauchen, und wir brauchen genauso Rechtssicherheit, zum einen für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger, aber auch für unsere Unternehmen, insbesondere unsere kleinen mittelständischen Unternehmen, die sich eben gerade nicht durch Standardvertragsklauseln oder andere Instrumente absichern können. Für sie ist der Privacy Shield von besonderer Bedeutung.

Ich möchte der Kommission ganz herzlich gratulieren. Frau Kommissarin, Sie und Ihr Team haben über viele Monate gut und hart verhandelt. Wenn Sie das Ergebnis jetzt vergleichen: Ich denke, es ist ein Riesenfortschritt im Vergleich zum Safe Harbour Agreement. Dazu möchte ich Sie einfach von ganzem Herzen beglückwünschen. Der Privacy Shield gibt Datensicherheit, er sieht verfahrensrechtliche Vorkehrungen vor, damit auch in den USA mit den Daten vorsichtig umgegangen wird. Am Ende des Tages wird natürlich erst die Praxis zeigen, wie dieses Verfahren zu bewerten ist. Deshalb finde ich es extrem wichtig, dass hier auch jährliche Evaluierungen vorgenommen werden, aber nicht nur Evaluierungen: Für den Fall, dass Sie den Eindruck gewinnen, dass die Daten in den USA nicht sorgfältig aufgenommen sind, gibt es ja auch Möglichkeiten, das Verfahren auszusetzen.

Ich finde, Sie haben da wirklich eine gute Arbeit hingelegt. Und wenn Sie jetzt die Vorschläge und Verbesserungen auch der Gruppe Artikel 29 noch aufgreifen – jetzt gleich oder im Laufe der weiteren Evaluierungen –, dann ist das ein gutes Paket für unsere Bürger und für unsere mittelständische Industrie.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, we must recognise the steps that our American partners have taken over the last few years in improving protection for data flowing from the EU to the US in direct response to concerns arising, in particular within this Parliament. The US Congress and Administration have enacted more than two dozen reforms to surveillance laws and programmes such as the Privacy Shield and the Judicial Redress Acts, among others.

As such, my Conservative colleagues and I see this debate as an opportunity for us all to welcome these efforts, which give added legal clarity for businesses and consumers alike. We must take this progress into trade negotiations such as TTIP and TISA, where setting benchmarks for data protection should increase confidence on both sides. Investment across the Atlantic is already worth around USD 4 trillion, and the steps the Americans have taken to ensure legal reciprocity, data protection and legal redress for EU citizens will help to boost this even further.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Beatrix von Storch (EFDD). – Herr Präsident! Frau Kommissarin! Wir sprechen also über den Datenaustausch mit den USA bzw. den Datenschutz für diese Daten mit den USA. Die Kommission verhandelt dazu aktuell ein neues Abkommen, und zwar weil es ein Gerichtsurteil vom Europäischen Gerichtshof gab, das erst ein Bürger erstreiten musste: Ein Bürger musste feststellen, dass der Datenschutz in den USA nicht gesichert ist, das war nicht die Initiative der Kommission!

Wir sind in höchstem Maße besorgt, dass Sie die Interessen auch tatsächlich richtig wahrnehmen. Alles, was ich von Ihnen heute gehört habe, hat mich nicht wirklich zuversichtlich gemacht. Sie haben gesagt: Die USA haben uns zugesagt, man hat uns zugesichert, Sie hoffen dies, Sie möchten das. Ich glaube, wenn wir am Ende kein Abkommen haben, das den Bürgern klagbare und durchsetzbare Rechte einräumt, dann wird das ganze Abkommen nicht so viel wert sein wie dieser schöne Kugelschreiber.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michał Boni (PPE). – Madam Commissioner, thank you very much to you and your team for an excellent job, and I think that now we are getting to the end of the story, which means that we will have a privacy shield.

We are all aware of the importance of data and transnational data flows in the modern economy. To ensure a right solution for transnational data flow is especially important for SMEs that have less legal and investment possibilities and which will be the important beneficiaries of such an instrument.

I believe that we need the Privacy Shield to ensure that our data-driven economy grows, especially supporting SMEs. I believe that it is a good approach to rebuild the transatlantic trust and strengthen the data protection rights on both sides of the Atlantic. The presented instrument introduces many improvements to the protection of fundamental rights. Among others, it strengthens Member States’ data protection authorities’ role in the process of claims investigations. The legal remedies are strengthened for EU citizens and residents also by the creation of an ombudsperson, and it would work on both sides of the Atlantic. Americans also change their legislation and their attitude.

What is now needed is to make sure that these legal remedies are really available to EU citizens and residents as well as the regular review of the implementation of the Privacy Shield. I see the role of the European Commission, EDPS and data protection authorities for this task.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). – Panie przewodniczący! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Również chcę wyrazić zadowolenie z zaawansowania rozmów w zakresie wymiany danych osobowych między Unią Europejską a Stanami Zjednoczonymi. Stany Zjednoczone są naturalnym, pozytywnym partnerem Europy i te rozmowy trzeba toczyć na podstawie zaufania, a nie podejrzeń. Cieszę się z tych rozstrzygnięć, także z tych wstępnych rozstrzygnięć, z pomysłów instytucjonalnych, z mechanizmu dochodzenia roszczeń. Myślę, że powinniśmy zadbać o maksymalnie wysoki stopień ochrony danych osobowych w tym porozumieniu, ale jednocześnie kierując się zasadą racjonalności. Ja mam wrażenie, że częstokroć prawo do prywatności jest interpretowane na poziomie nadużycia, co często pozostaje w sprzeczności z innymi dobrami. Szczególnie w dziedzinie bezpieczeństwa nie można interpretować prawa do prywatności tak, by uniemożliwiona była ochrona bezpieczeństwa naszych obywateli, bezpieczeństwa Europy, Stanów Zjednoczonych i wspólnoty transatlantyckiej.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: ADINA-IOANA VĂLEAN
Vice-President

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye procedure

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ho evidenziato, in precedenti interventi in relazione al geoblocking, lo stimolo proveniente dall'importante decisum della Corte di giustizia del 6 ottobre 2015.

Il nuovo approdo normativo per i flussi transatlantici di dati sembra aver raccolto questa sfida, al fine di garantire protezione dei dati personali e sviluppo delle attività imprenditoriali, ma la riflessione di fondo è che nelle inerzie degli accordi con gli Stati Uniti è già da tempo avvenuta una lesione dei principi fondamentali degli individui, nella raccolta dei flussi dei dati privati e nel controllo inconsapevole delle loro vite. Vanno quindi fatti rispettare i severi obblighi imposti dalle imprese sui dati personali dei cittadini europei ed il controllo del rispetto di tali obblighi, ma vanno innanzitutto evidenziati gli obblighi di trasparenza a carico degli Stati Uniti, con procedure di ricorso realmente efficaci.

In questa enorme quantità di dati sensibili rubati, vi è infatti l'impossibilità di esercitare un efficace controllo domestico nazionale e, in caso di eventuale violazione, resta enfatizzato il ruolo della Commissione che, mi auguro, non attenda nuovamente la Corte di giustizia.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία πρόεδρε, η προστασία των δεδομένων και της ιδιωτικής ζωής αποτελεί θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα των πολιτών της Ένωσης και θα πρέπει να ληφθεί υπόψη κάθε μέτρο προκειμένου αυτά να μην παραβιάζονται.

Όσον αφορά τις διατλαντικές ροές δεδομένων, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες έχουν υπογράψει συμφωνία για την προστασία της ιδιωτικότητας και την ασφάλεια του δικαίου για τις επιχειρήσεις σε περίπτωση που υπάρχει μεταβίβαση δεδομένων από την Ένωση στις ΗΠΑ.

Βέβαια, όπως ορίζεται στο πλαίσιο της νέας ρύθμισης, οι δημόσιες αρχές των ΗΠΑ υποτίθεται ότι θα έχουν πρόσβαση σε δεδομένα προσωπικού χαρακτήρα και θα το πράττουν αυτό, υποτίθεται, υπό περιορισμούς και με επίβλεψη, ούτως ώστε να μην υπάρχει γενικευμένη πρόσβαση.

Παράλληλα, οι Ευρωπαίοι θα πρέπει να έχουν το δικαίωμα να ζητήσουν διεξαγωγή έρευνας ή να υποβάλουν καταγγελίες σε περίπτωση παραβίασης των προσωπικών τους δεδομένων.

Ωστόσο, είναι αναγκαίο να συγκεκριμενοποιηθούν οι περιπτώσεις πρόσβασης των δημόσιων αρχών των ΗΠΑ σε προσωπικά δεδομένα και να επιτευχθεί ισορροπία ασφάλειας και ελευθερίας. Η προστασία των δεδομένων σε κάθε διατλαντική ροή θα πρέπει να προστατεύεται και να μην υποτάσσεται στις επιδιώξεις των υπηρεσιών ασφαλείας των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora Presidenta, ¿sería bueno que no hubiera flujo transatlántico de datos? No. ¿Puede este Parlamento o debe oponerse a que exista ese flujo, que, por cierto, es masivo? Desde luego que no. Pero debe exigir que ese tráfico, ese flujo, esté regulado por el Derecho y, por tanto, la Comisión ha hecho su trabajo intentando acordar y negociar nada menos que con los Estados Unidos un escudo de privacidad, un privacy shield que no cae del cielo, porque obedece a una sentencia contundente del Tribunal de Justicia, que anuló precisamente el acuerdo de puerto seguro a partir de la demanda interpuesta en el caso Schrems.

Pero las dudas persisten, y es muy importante que mantengamos la guardia muy alta para asegurar la adecuación de este nuevo acuerdo de privacidad, de escudo de privacidad — privacy shield— con la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Y aquí cobra enorme importancia la cláusula de revisión anual para que la Comisión vigile el cumplimiento exacto de las garantías de limitación y supervisión ofrecidas por el Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos para asegurar los derechos fundamentales de la Unión Europea, y, en caso de incumplimiento, actúe antes de que tengamos que asistir a una nueva sentencia contundente y anulatoria del acuerdo del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, u prošlosti su mnoge presude Europskog suda pravde spadale u sferu sudskog aktivizma i služile su kao podloga za oduzimanje nadležnosti državama članicama. Moram priznati da sam otad prilično skeptična, no ova je presuda poslužila kao dobar okidač za izmjenu pomalo zastarjele regulative koja nije osiguravala najvišu razinu zaštite podataka i u tom sam smislu zadovoljna.

Privacy Shield nudi cijeli niz jamstava da će prava naših građana biti poštivana na drugoj strani Atlantika. Posebno važnim smatram uključenje američkog pravobranitelja koji će nadgledati pritužbe europskih građana i uvođenje novog obveznog roka od 45 dana unutar kojeg će tvrtke morati rješavati reklamacije građana.

Vjerujem kako će naši građani biti zadovoljni činjenicom da su američkim institucijama po prvi put postavljena jasnija ograničenja kod pristupa podacima, a tu je i kontrola provedbe sustava od strane Komisije koja će o svemu izvješćivati ovaj dom. Postignut je značajan napredak i to apsolutno podržavamo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, ne sumnjam u dobre namjere Komisije, ne sumnjam u vaše dobre namjere , gđo Jurova, i ne mogu ne reći da je, naravno, ono što nam se predlaže i što ste nam predstavili svojevrstan napredak.

Dozvolite mi da izrazim i malu sumnju u konačan uspjeh onoga što se želi postići. Sigurna luka, kasnije Štit privatnosti, i poziv na prihvaćanje umbrella sporazuma dobre su ideje, a čak su i nazivi vrlo kreativni. Moramo reći da oni koji žele doći do naših podataka, oni koji žele naštetiti našoj privatnosti također su iznimno kreativni i mogu doći do naših podataka. Nažalost, ne sumnjam da danas tko zna tko sve ne u SAD-u zna sve o meni, vjerojatno sve o vama, gđi Sophiji in't Veld, g. Schultzu, g. Junckeru.

Nažalost, ne sumnjam u to i ne znam kada ćemo to do kraja uspješno spriječiti.

 
  
 

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Honourable Members very much for this discussion. It is always very important that that we hold it and it is also inspiring for the Commission, both for myself and my colleagues.

You are right that the flow of data from the European Union to the United States is really massive. We needed to come forward soon with the new system which will protect the data of European citizens, not because of big companies which have this data flow as a basis for their business, but, as has been mentioned here several times, it was also in the interests of European small and medium—sized enterprises, for which it was a real disaster that they appeared in legal uncertainty. This is just the circumstance which we had to take into account when we worked on this issue after the court ruling – and also before, of course.

We needed strong assurances from our American counterparts. We needed to achieve legal certainty and to put an end to uncertainties where the companies were in a very difficult situation. During the negotiations I called our situation and the way we wanted to conclude these negotiations ‘trust and check’. We need to have elementary trust towards our American partners that they will comply with their own laws and that they will do what they have committed themselves to in the official letters signed at the highest possible level. I will share with you today that I cannot say that that Privacy Shield, as a mechanism to protect EU citizens’ data in the United States, is perfect. It cannot be perfect and I will never be totally satisfied with it, because there were objective reasons why we could not achieve more.

One is the matter of the American legal order, which Mr Albrecht very rightly pointed out here. We do not have any power to change legislation in the United States, but we will keep monitoring developments in this field in the United States and we have expressed many times our conviction that the data will be better protected in America if they have the proper data protection law. We cannot do much more.

The second objective, where we could not do more, is access to data for national security purposes. Look at the situation in Europe. Here the Commission and the European Union does not have any power to ask the secret services to be more transparent and to inform people whether they are using their data or not. Not even the Member States can do that. Certainly we wanted a similar thing when we negotiated the conditions in the United States. So these were our limits. I must say very openly that we are not fully satisfied, but we are satisfied in the sense that we achieved the maximum which was possible. But what is more important is that we must not be satisfied for the future. Satisfaction must not be our leading principle for the years to come, because the Commission has committed itself – I have committed myself and my colleagues – to monitor on a continuous basis what is happening in the United States. We will do it in a very transparent way through the annual reviews, where we expect all who are to contribute to input the trustworthy data showing the illustration of the situation as it stands, both in the United States and in the European Union.

I think that this annual review and the very strong suspension clause is quite a strong safeguard and strong measure. I am convinced that we do not need any sunset clause, as has been proposed here. Mrs Sophie in 't Veld is absolutely right that the Schrems ruling helped us. I am sorry we waited for it from the moment when we knew that this has been lodged at the court, because we were already convinced before the ruling that the decision would give us proper arguments and proper benchmarks, which will help us negotiate this stronger position. I must say that it helped in the negotiations and we very precisely took article by article in the Schrems ruling and we renegotiated in a very tough way with the American partners, referring to the court decision. I cannot be sure that the new court ruling will not be as strict as the previous one, but I am confident that we tailored the Privacy Shield system on the requirement of the court. So again, we did our best.

On the Umbrella Agreement, I do not know about a situation where we would keep some something secret. There were many written questions, which we answered, to the members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). I would like to ask you again not only for your support for the Privacy Shield but also for the Umbrella Agreement because, as I said in my opening speech, this is a real improvement in the protection of data in the exchange between law enforcement authorities. We should take into very serious consideration that this is also about the data of witnesses and victims of criminal offences, and this plays an important role in the strengthening of cooperation between the EU and the US in criminal justice and security matters, because we all know that the security situation is worsening and that we will have to do everything we can to have better, swifter and safer cooperation between the law enforcement authorities in the United States and the European Union. So I would like to ask you again for your support.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bert Koenders, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Ladies and Gentlemen.

First of all, thank you very much for this debate, and thank you to the Commission for your clarification about the Privacy Shield and the further planning. I think this debate makes clear that smooth data flows can never mean uncontrolled and unchecked data flows. The basis of data flows should always be the trust of our citizens that the data are being used in a just and prudent way both in Europe and the United States. And if a citizen has the feeling that this is not the case, he or she should be able to object to this use.

At the same time we know – and I think that many Members have expressed this today – the enormous importance of smooth data flows for governments, companies and American and European citizens, who are reaping the benefits of this. It means companies are being enabled to operate more effectively and efficiently on the European and American side of the Atlantic, and therefore we are talking about a very important issue. It also means we will be able to fight crime more effectively and increase the security of both our continents. So we have to see to what extent this can all benefit us, and I think the proposal that has been made is therefore so important.

First, on the Umbrella Agreement. I think – and I refer to many questions that were asked on this – it is important to say that the agreement itself does not constitute a legal basis for the transfer of personal data, it only supplements other agreements with a common set of data protection safeguards. I think that is very important.

Finally, as you know, the agreement can be suspended in cases where the parties do not live up to it. So that is important. A few questions were raised on the ombudsperson. I think also here we have to underline the fact that the ombudsperson is an additional mechanism compared to other systems. So, in itself, it is not sufficient legal protection. It will not replace more substantive forms of legal protection, and I believe that it is a step forward that the United States has been willing to create this mechanism and trust that the handling of complaints submitted will be conducted in a proper manner. I would like to point out that the ombudsperson does not fulfil its position in isolation but, as stated in Annex III, works in cooperation with the internal regulators of the agencies who will need to provide information and answer questions. I would say that also many EU Member States provide for an ombudsperson-type oversight on intelligence activities in our countries.

I think, correctly, it was pointed out that the arrest was, if you wish, a catalyst for something that is, I think, a very improved deal. The Court was important; it reminded us that an essentially equivalent level of data protection in a third country can only be met if government access to the third country meets the standards of necessity and proportionality. If a third country allows for massive and indiscriminate collection of data, the standards are not met, and in this case the representations by the various US government officials clearly indicated that the US has adopted laws and policies combined with a system of oversight and redress possibilities in order to avoid the massive and indiscriminate collection of data.

The main rule is: targeted collection of data, bulk collection, is secondary, and bulk collection, if based on a proper legal standard and with sufficient safeguards to protect the rights and interests of data subjects, is acceptable, since it is not massive and indiscriminate collection of data.

Then about the ‘sunset clause, I do not want to repeat; I agree with what has been said by the Commissioner. I know it is a big point of discussion also in your Parliament. I agree in this case with Mr Voss that we do not need such a sunset clause, since there is a strong element of annual review and monitoring foreseen in the agreement.

Finally, I would say that we deem that the Privacy Shield and the Umbrella Agreement offer the safeguards needed to justify our citizens’ trust. We hope, therefore, also, that the European Parliament will consider all the positive aspects. It is also true here to say that the better is the enemy of the good. It is important that we can now make progress on this; it is important for our citizens and our businesses – EU citizens in particular – when consent is given, hopefully to the conclusion of the agreement.

 
  
 

President. – I have received seven motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD), per iscritto. – I flussi di dati tra UE e USA sono i più intensi al mondo e rappresentano un elemento essenziale nelle relazioni di natura commerciale, soprattutto per le multinazionali americane. Ad ottobre 2015, la Corte di giustizia europea ha invalidato la decisione "Safe Harbour" statuendo che le autorità nazionali di controllo possono valutare l'adeguatezza del livello di protezione garantito da un paese terzo e in caso sospendere il trasferimento dei dati. La Commissione ha così redatto una nuova decisione, cosiddetta "Privacy Shield" al fine di garantire il rispetto della privacy e dei dati personali dei cittadini europei. Questa decisione, tuttavia, non garantisce un adeguato livello di tutela e protezione del diritto fondamentale alla protezione dei dati di carattere personale. Negli USA, infatti, i dati degli stranieri non sono altro che un bene che può essere utilizzato come meglio si crede senza alcun rispetto della privacy. Si pensi inoltre alle intense e pervasive attività poste in essere dai servizi di intelligence americani, come fatto emergere da Edward Snowden. Il nostro compito è quello di tutelare i cittadini da qualsiasi abuso e con questo testo, de facto, legalizziamo qualsiasi tipo di utilizzo dei dati sensibili degli europei da parte degli USA.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE), in writing. – Transatlantic data flows between EU and US intensify rapidly with every year. Since the European Court of Justice ruled the previous Safe Harbour as inoperative, we should aim to create a new ambitious framework for secure data exchange. I support EC position that EU- US Privacy Shield should impose stronger obligations to U.S. companies. U.S. should completely abstain from indiscriminate mass surveillance, it should commit itself to more transparency and as well to a better cooperation with European Data Protection Authorities. EU Privacy Shield has to serve the interests of EU citizens and European companies. Any access by U.S. public authorities to personal data must be a subject to clear safeguards.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE), в писмена форма. – Постигането на съгласие по нова рамка за трансатлантическите потоци от данни е от първостепенно значение за търговията и инвестициите между ЕС и САЩ. В резултат на цифровизацията на нашите икономики, трансферът на данни придобива все по-голямо значение за двустранните икономически отношения като допринася за икономическия ръст и конкурентоспособността. Предприятията от двете на страни на Атлантика имат нужда от правна сигурност, за да развиват своята дейност, а европейските граждани трябва да получат гаранции за неприкосновеността на техните лични данни и възможности за правна защита. Смятам, че новото споразумение трябва да изпълнява тези изисквания и да създаде ясна и солидна правна рамка, която гарантира ефективна защита на неприкосновеност на личния живот и защита на данните. Важно е изпълнението на поетите ангажименти да се наблюдава отблизо, за да бъде възстановено доверието между трансатлантическите партньори. Това би могло да даде импулс и да допринесе за положителната динамика в двустранните отношения и в други области на сътрудничество, като подсили трансатлантическата връзка между ЕС и САЩ и подкрепи усилията за справяне с общите предизвикателства в глобален план.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE), pisno. – Potem ko je Sodišče Evropske unije označilo dogovor Varen pristan za neveljaven, je Evropska komisija predlagala nov režim za pretok podatkov med ZDA in EU, poimenovan Ščit zasebnosti. Razumljivo je, da je treba zagotoviti pravno gotovost za posle med ZDA in EU, vendar se to ne sme zgoditi na račun temeljnih pravic, kar na žalost v Ščitu zasebnosti ni odraženo. Nadalje, Ščit zasebnosti ne spoštuje sodne prakse Sodišča Evropske unije, na primer sodb Schrems, Data Retention in Google Spain, prav tako pa je izvrševanje pogodbe precej zahtevno, saj morajo iti podatki skozi pet zaporednih postopkov. Zaskrbljujoče je tudi dejstvo, da sporazum zaradi nižjih zahtev v primerjavi s pravom EU o zaščiti podatkov daje primerjalno prednost podjetjem iz ZDA napram evropskim podjetjem. Menim, da obstaja tudi možnost, da bo sporazum v prihodnosti spoznan za neveljavnega, prav tako kot se je to zgodilo v primeru sporazuma Varen pristan. Zaradi vsega navedenega se mi zdi smiselno uvesti klavzulo o časovni omejitvi, ki bi po nekaj letih zahtevala ponovno pogajanje in podpis sporazuma, kar bi omogočilo njegovo izboljšanje.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE), napisan. – Gospodarstva Europske unije i Sjedinjenih Američkih Država čine više od 50 % svjetskog BDP-a, 25 % svjetskog izvoza i više od 30 % svjetskog uvoza. Radi se o dva najunosnija svjetska gospodarstva s ukupnom vrijednošću transatlantskog prometa u 2014. godini u iznosu od jednog trilijuna dolara.

Protok podataka između Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Europske unije iznosi oko 15 terabita po sekundi, što predstavlja daleko najveći protok podataka u svijetu. Smatram da je slobodan protok podataka između EU-a i SAD-a od ključne važnosti za rast trgovine i ulaganja, jer su transatlantske transakcije i usluge među poduzećima postala stvarnost, a i potrošači s obje strane Atlantika sve se više služe internetom za kupnju robe i usluga. Pristup internetu u SAD-u ima 85 % stanovnika, a u Europskoj uniji 90 %.

Internet je dostupan svugdje u svijetu, a uvjerena sam da će rezolucija o transatlantskom protoku podataka Europskoj uniji otvoriti mogućnost širenja trgovine i ulaganja u zemlje u razvoju. Zbog toga smatram da će doći do rasta internetske međunarodne trgovine kao i potrebe za slobodnim protokom podataka. Ovu rezoluciju vidim kao korak naprijed u tom smjeru.

 
Dernière mise à jour: 21 juillet 2016Avis juridique