Report - A6-0456/2006Report
A6-0456/2006
European Parliament

REPORT with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters

11.12.2006 - (2006/2286(INI))

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Martine Roure

Procedure : 2006/2286(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected :  
A6-0456/2006
Texts tabled :
A6-0456/2006
Debates :
Votes :
Texts adopted :

PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RECOMMENDATION

TO THE COUNCIL

on the progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters

(2006/2286(INI))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Martine Roure on behalf of the PSE Group on the progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (B6‑0618/2006),

–   having regard to its position of 27 September 2006[1],

–   having regard to the opinions of the national authorities’ Data Protection Working Party (Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC) and the European Data Protection Supervisor[2],

–   having regard to Council of Europe Convention No 108 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data,

–   having regard to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders[3],

-    having regard to the opinions of the conference of national data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor,

–   having regard to Rule 114(3) and Rule 94 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0456/2006),

A. whereas the Council has fulfilled an undertaking made before Parliament on 27 September 2006 by stepping up the pace of discussions on the proposal for a framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and whereas it is apparently close to reaching an agreement on that text,

B.  whereas, despite the undertaking given by the Presidency in Parliament on 27 September 2006, it does not appear that Parliament’s position – unanimously adopted – has been taken into account in the negotiations taking place in the Council,

C. whereas the European Parliament and the national parliaments have not been kept informed of the progress of negotiations in the Council,

D. having regard to the reserved opinions expressed by the national data protection authorities and to their declaration issued in London on 2 November 2006, in which they called for the establishment of a coherent framework for protecting data exchanged within Member States, between Member States or with non-EU countries,

E.  whereas the opinions of the European Data Protection Supervisor and the conference of national data protection authorities do not appear to have been taken into account in the negotiations in the Council,

F.  extremely concerned at the direction being taken by the debate in the Council, with Member States appearing to be moving towards a data protection agreement based on the lowest common denominator; fearing, moreover, that the level of data protection will be lower than that provided by Directive 95/46/EC and Council of Europe Convention No 108 and that implementation of such an agreement might have a negative impact on the general principle of data protection in each Member State without establishing a satisfactory level of protection at European level,

G. whereas the framework decision currently being discussed by the Council would establish different data protection rules, i.e. those applied by the Schengen states and those applied by the non-Schengen states, and whereas these differences would result in inconsistent data protection standards within the European Union,

H. whereas the proposed framework decision is closely linked to the establishment of the availability principle, which is a priority of the Hague Programme,

I.   recalling that the proposed framework decision should in due course replace Council of Europe Convention No 108 by giving the EU its own instrument for data protection in the framework of police and judicial cooperation,

1.  Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

General principles

(a) ensure a high level of protection of European citizens’ fundamental rights by establishing a legal framework to protect personal data in the areas covered by Title VI of the EU Treaty;

(b)   help to enhance European police and judicial cooperation and mutual trust between the competent authorities of the Member States by ensuring a minimum harmonised level of data protection;

(c)   ensure that the framework decision will bring European added value by guaranteeing a high level of data protection in all Member States;

(d)   lay down general data protection principles for the third pillar, taking over the principles already enshrined in the Community directives in this area while laying down additional rules on data protection which take due account of the specific nature of police and judicial work;

(e)   ensure observance of the purpose-specification and proportionality principles under which any interference in the private lives of individuals must be necessary and justified and any further processing of data must be in keeping with the purpose for which they were initially collected, in accordance with European Court of Human Rights case law;

(f)    give the framework decision a broad scope, including data protection in the context of national processing, the objective of which is the same as that of Directive 95/46/EC, i.e. to provide citizens with a high degree of protection within an area of freedom, security and justice and to abolish disparities between levels of protection of individuals' rights and levels of security of files and data systems which hinder the transmission and exchange of data between Member States;

Minimum data protection standards in the specific context of police and judicial cooperation

(g) not weaken existing data protection standards by adopting a text that falls short of Directive 95/46/EC and Council of Europe Convention No 108, which is legally binding on Member States, and in particular:

- maintain data subjects’ right of information and access to data and right of appeal in accordance with Articles 5(a) and 8 of Convention No 108;

- maintain a high level of protection for sensitive data, in keeping with existing first-pillar standards, and ensure that the principle of a ban on the use of particular categories of data, with limited exceptions, applies; ensure a very high level of data protection in connection with the processing of biometric and DNA-related data;

- maintain the distinction between different types of data (data on victims, suspects, witnesses, etc.), so as to allow different and specific processing of and guarantees for different types of data, particularly as regards non-suspects;

(h)   recognise that an excessive disparity in data protection levels between the first and third pillars would have a negative impact not only on citizens’ right to data protection but also on mutual trust between Member States and on the effectiveness of police work;

(i)    guarantee data quality: only data presumed to be accurate should be transmitted in response to a duly substantiated prior request from the competent authority;

(j)    ensure the implementation of European data confidentiality standards;

Further processing and transfer of data

(k) establish limits and specific guarantees for the further processing of data and the transfer of data to authorities other than the competent authorities, while ensuring that the purpose-specification principle is observed;

(l)    ensure that the exchange of data with the competent authorities of non-EU countries is included in the scope of the framework decision with a view to ensuring, if necessary by negotiating appropriate international agreements, an adequate level of data protection; also ensure that the quality of data received from non-EU countries is assessed, including from the standpoint of the protection of fundamental rights;

(m)  establish specific guarantees regarding the transfer and use of data collected by private parties and processed by public authorities; establish sanctions, including criminal penalties, for any misuse of data processed in this context;

Specific observations

2.  Believes that in a relationship as sensitive and unequal as that existing between the public authorities and the citizen, an individual’s consent may be considered a sufficient legal basis to justify the further processing of his or her data for security purposes only in exceptional and specific cases that have been defined and regulated by national law, and recalls that Directive 95/46/EC continues to apply to any further processing based on the first pillar;

3.  Considers that there is a need for compulsory consultation of national data protection authorities (pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC) and of their EU institutional network, the ‘Article 29 Working Party’, during the preparation of any regulatory or administrative measures dealing with data protection;

4.  Reiterates its call for the European Parliament and the national parliaments to be fully involved in the discussions in progress in the Council and for the opinion unanimously adopted by the European Parliament to be taken into consideration;

5.  Calls on the Council to adopt the framework decision on data protection, taking due account of the position unanimously adopted by the European Parliament; reaffirms that Parliament considers it essential for an appropriate framework decision on data protection under the third pillar to be adopted prior to adoption of the decision on the VIS and the regulation on the VIS;

6.  Calls for detailed rules on data security, comparable with the rules laid down in the Europol Convention, to be maintained in the framework decision;

7.  Reserves the option of discussing with national parliaments its forthcoming opinion on the text of the framework decision on data protection once the Council has set out its position on the matter;

8.  Calls for the prompt adoption of the framework decision but warns that the speed of the decisions must not lead to a levelling-down of data protection, and that controversial articles must not simply be deleted or simplified;

9.  Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the Parliaments and Governments of the Member States and the Council of Europe.

21.11.2006

PROPOSAL FOR A RECOMMENDATION

(B6‑0618/2006)

pursuant to Rule 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure

by Martine Roure, on behalf of the PSE Group

on data protection in the context of police cooperation in criminal matters

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its report adopted on 27 September 2006[4],

–   having regard to the opinions of the national authorities’ Data Protection Working Party (Directive 95/46/EC, Article 29) and the European Data Protection Supervisor[5],

–   having regard to Council of Europe Convention No 108 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data,

–   having regard to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders[6],

–   having regard to Rule 114(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas the Council has fulfilled an undertaking made before Parliament on 27 September 2006 by stepping up the pace of discussions on the proposal for a framework decision on data protection in the context of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and whereas it is apparently close to reaching an agreement on that text,

B.  whereas, despite the undertaking given by the Presidency in Parliament on 27 September 2006, it does not appear that Parliament’s opinion – unanimously adopted – has been taken into account in the negotiations taking place in the Council,

C. whereas the European Parliament and the national parliaments have not been kept informed of the progress of negotiations in the Council,

D. having regard to the reserved opinions expressed by the national data protection authorities and to their declaration issued in London on 2 November 2006, in which they called for the establishment of a coherent framework for protecting data exchanged at national level, between Member States or with non-EU countries,

E.  having regard to its extreme concern at the direction of the debate in the Council,

1.  Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

     (a) regrets that Member States are moving towards a data protection agreement based on the lowest common denominator; fears, moreover, that the implementation of that agreement will have a negative impact on the general principle of data protection in EU Member States without establishing a satisfactory level of protection at European level;

     (b) recalls that the proposed framework decision should in due course replace Council of Europe Convention No 108 on data protection; considers, however, that the text currently being discussed in the Council falls short of Convention No 108 and risks undermining existing data protection standards; hopes that the framework decision will bring European added value by ensuring a high level of data protection in all Member States;

     (c) considers that, as the negotiations stand in the Council, the proposed framework decision would create inconsistencies in certain data protection standards between states that are signatories to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, which implement Convention No 108, and those that are not signatories;

     (d) hopes that the framework decision will have a broad scope, including data protection in the context of national processing, the objective of which is the same as that of Directive 95/46/EC, i.e. to provide citizens with a high degree of protection within an area of freedom, security and justice and to abolish disparities between levels of protection of people’s rights and levels of security of files and data systems which hinder the transmission and exchange of data between Member States;

     (e) stresses that the exchange of data with the competent authorities of non-EU countries should also be included in the scope of this framework decision with a view to ensuring, if necessary by negotiating appropriate international agreements, an adequate level of data protection;

     (f)  hopes that future European Union rules will ensure a very high level of protection for sensitive data, particularly as regards the processing of biometric and DNA-related data;

     (g) believes that in the context of a relationship as sensitive and unequal as that which exists between the public authorities and the citizen, an individual’s consent cannot alone be considered a sufficient legal basis to justify the subsequent processing of personal data for security purposes, and recalls that Directive 95/46/EC continues to apply to all subsequent processing based on the first pillar;

     (h) reserves the option of discussing with national parliaments its forthcoming opinion on the text of the framework decision on data protection once the Council has set out its position on the matter;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission and the Parliaments and Governments of the Member States.

PROCEDURE

Title

Progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters

 

References

(2006/2286(INI))

Proposal(s) for recommendation(s) considered

B6-0618/2006

Committee responsible
  Date announced in plenary

LIBE

11.12.2006

Date of decision to draw up a report

23.11.2006

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)
  Date announced in plenary

 

Not delivering opinion(s)
  Date of decision

 

Enhanced cooperation
  Date announced in plenary

 

Rapporteur(s)
  Date appointed

Martine Roure
23.11.2006

 

Previous rapporteur(s)

 

 

Discussed in committee

27.11.2006

11.12.2006

 

 

 

Date adopted

11.12.2006

Result of final vote

+ :

–:

0 :

39

0

1

Members present for the final vote

Edit Bauer, Johannes Blokland, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Giusto Catania, Carlos Coelho, Fausto Correia, Panayiotis Demetriou, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Adeline Hazan, Ewa Klamt, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Barbara Kudrycka, Stavros Lambrinidis, Henrik Lax, Sarah Ludford, Edith Mastenbroek, Hartmut Nassauer, Martine Roure, Luciana Sbarbati, Inger Segelström, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Donato Tommaso Veraldi, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Marco Cappato, Richard Corbett, Camiel Eurlings, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Sophia in 't Veld, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Marie-Line Reynaud, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Rainer Wieland

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Marie-Arlette Carlotti, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Yannick Vaugrenard

Date tabled

11.12.2006

Comments (available in one language only)

...
Legal notice - Privacy policy