Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Wednesday, 21 November 2012 - Strasbourg OJ edition

16. Proposed data protection directive - personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (debate)
Video of the speeches
Minutes
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement concerning the proposed data protection directive – personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission presented the reform proposal for the EU data protection regime in January for two reasons: first, to ensure a high level of data protection for individuals as provided for in the treaties and second, to offer European businesses a future-proof and technologically neutral data protection regime.

We must now make rapid progress to reach agreement on the package on the table. In Parliament the progress has been particularly noticeable in the different working documents and draft reports prepared by the rapporteurs. For the Commission, progress means that the regulation and the directive continue to be negotiated as a package. The freedom and security of our European citizens are two sides of the same coin. These are two policy objectives that should be reached with the adoption of the proposals to reform the European Union rules on data protection.

As regards the personal data processed in the context of police and judicial cooperation, we currently have a multitude of rules and different legal instruments. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty allows the establishment of a comprehensive data protection framework. We can ensure a high level of protection for individuals’ data whilst respecting the specific nature of the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In particular, the revised EU data protection framework can now cover both cross-border and domestic processing of personal data. This would reduce differences between the legislation in Member States.

The status quo may not always facilitate the smooth exchange of information between Member States. The rules set by the pre-Lisbon Framework Decision that the proposed Directive aims to replace are limited to cross-border processing. In practice, police and law enforcement authorities may not have always distinguished between cross-border and domestic processing. It is not always feasible to draw this distinction in the daily work of a policeman or of a court. For instance, a single national database used in the law enforcement field may contain personal data that were both collected nationally and received from another Member State.

It would be inefficient to create two separate databases in such situations; it would also be inefficient to apply two different sets of data protection rules within a single database. The proposed directive aims to cover both domestic and cross-border processing. This has been a longstanding request from Parliament. The proposed directive also contains the same protection principles as those enshrined in the Regulation. This also echoes Parliament’s request to extend the application of the general data protection rules to the areas of police and judicial cooperation.

Key elements enshrined in the draft regulation are also introduced in the proposed directive, such as: data protection by design and by default; the appointment of data protection officers; the obligation to notify personal data breaches; and the extension of the powers of the Commission to adopt adequacy decisions for international transfers to third countries. These novelties emphasise the importance of robust protection rules in instruments allowing for data exchange. Let us never lose sight of the fact that the protection of personal data is a right enshrined in the Union’s Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This is why the new data protection rules will have to be taken into account in sectoral instruments, in particular in the area of the former third pillar. Once a directive has entered into force the Commission, within three years, will have to review and possibly amend other acts adopted by the European Union which regulate the processing of personal data by law enforcement authorities.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly, on behalf of the PPE Group. (GA) Mr President, I am delighted to have two minutes to speak about this very important subject, a subject that is important to all citizens and to all businesses, not only in the European Union but throughout the world.

In 1995 we had a data protection directive, which was relevant for that particular time. Part of it dealt with the processing of personal data by the police and the judicial authorities. This was a framework decision. Over time, Parliament realised that this was becoming more and more outdated and called for a revision. It was never really effective, in some respects at least, because it dealt with cross-border processing, but not at national level by the police. It was also too loose, leading to a very wide range of interpretation at Member State level, the result being that some Member States had high data protection standards while others had very low ones. Of course the Commission had no implementing rules to ensure a common approach.

As the Commissioner pointed out, with the advent of the Lisbon Treaty – and obviously the development of the internet and the way the world has moved on since – it needs to be updated. Parliament itself would have preferred this single instrument but can live with the Commission’s proposals – a regulation and a directive. However, we are concerned about a number of aspects, particularly in relation to the lack of urgency at Council level to deal with the directive. There seems to be certain movement on the regulation, but not enough on the directive. I think for that reason we would ask the Council to bring forward a roadmap for how they are going to deal with it and also to ensure there is enough flexibility at Member State level not to have a dramatic rise in terms of standards in one and a dramatic drop in another. If we do that, we can make progress.

My final point is that I am pleased to say that the Irish Prime Minister approached me last Saturday week saying that during the Irish Presidency they would have this as one of their priorities.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), Blue-card question. (RO) Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Kelly if the interim report he expects from the Council will refer to how the new package will influence international agreements such as SWIFT or the passenger manifest. I believe that it is important to know how existing and future international agreements will be aligned with the new legal package on data protection.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE), Blue-card answer. – Yes, I think that is a very important point, because we have to have consistency right across the board. While I cannot predict what the Council is going to do, I think it is important that we take all these matters into consideration, and particularly that the Council should show some urgency regarding this matter so that we can get it completed, particularly during this mandate. I fear that if it is not completed by the end of next year, with elections pending in 2014, it might be very difficult to make much progress if there is too much left to be done in 2014.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dimitrios Droutsas, on behalf of the S&D Group. (EL) Mr President, I warmly thank the Commissioner for her presentation to the European Parliament and for today’s statement. It is self-evident, in my opinion, and we all agree, that the issue of the protection of European citizens’ personal data is extremely important and demands that we all treat it with the required gravity and attention. I wish to stress once more that we in the European Parliament do indeed attach great importance to this. The European Parliament therefore is and will continue to be extremely strict and demanding towards the other institutional bodies of the Union on this issue. As you know, Commissioner, from the outset the European Parliament wished to have a single legislative instrument, a regulation that would cover all aspects and all areas of personal data protection, with equal attention to the public and private sectors, and at the same time would include cases of processing of personal data by the judicial and police authorities. Unfortunately, our wish was not respected, with the result that today we have to deal with the proposals for a regulation and a directive. Parliament welcomed the Commission’s proposals, but we decided to deal with them as a single legislative package, both at a practical level and in terms of substance. I wish to emphasise that there cannot be a regulation without a directive, in our opinion. We shall insist on the rationale of the package in order to ensure coherence and legal certainty. Commissioner, I am glad that in your comments today you confirmed again that the Commission sees the regulation and directive as a single package and is treating them as such. Rest assured that we have no complaints about the Commission. On the contrary, our cooperation with the Commission is of a very high standard, and I have no hesitation in pointing this out from this rostrum, to express my gratitude to you. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about the Council. I wonder why the Council is not present at today’s debate. Why is the Council not here today to answer the oral question we have put? Allow me to say that this is not only a sign of disrespect to the institution of the European Parliament, but it also gives the message, as I feel compelled to conclude, that the Council does not attach due importance to this crucial issue for European citizens. Unfortunately the Council is delaying its work on the directive. I wonder – and with good reason, I think – why the Council is refusing, as its stance indicates, to cooperate. Allow me, Mr President, to conclude by stressing that the European Parliament will defend its positions by whatever means it considers necessary and appropriate. The aim is to complete the procedures and implement the regulation and directive as a package, to provide European citizens with a high level of protection of their personal data.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, for those of you who have been following the presidential election campaign in the US, you know what I am referring to when I say I feel a little bit like Clint Eastwood, talking to an empty chair, because once again, the Council is absent.

As my colleagues have already outlined, this House will stick to the package approach, keeping the regulation and the directive together. But I would like to add one element and that is that the directive for us is a precondition for further police and justice cooperation and that is something that the Council should understand because the Council too has wishes. It wants to proceed as we do in the area of police and justice cooperation. But how can police and justice exchange data if there is no adequate data protection?

So I would strongly advise the absent Council to proceed quickly with the directive and I would like to go a little bit further than my colleagues; instead of a roadmap let us aim for results and quick results. If the Council wants us to adopt further measures in the area of police and justice cooperation, I can think of a few interesting dossiers: EU PNR, investigation order and what have you. They had better speed up their work on the directive.

I would also like to remind the Council that the predecessor of the directive, the framework decision which is currently in force, was actually voted down by this House. Unfortunately, that was pre-Lisbon. But we do not consider that the current framework decision is adequate, so whatever the Council comes up with, it will have to be a good deal better than what is currently in force.

Secondly, we will work very hard to align the directive with the regulation because we are disappointed that there are two instruments rather than one and we will work very hard to try and ensure a single harmonised level of data protection for all use of personal data.

Finally colleagues, coming back to my reference to Clint Eastwood, I would like to say the following to the Council, as Clint Eastwood said in his role as Dirty Harry when a criminal was trying to defy him: ‘you have to ask yourself one question: do I feel lucky?’

Council, will you defy Parliament? That is the question.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. (DE) Mr President, our debate here today is not only about data protection. It is also about the future of police and judicial cooperation in Europe. For years, the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers have been promoting cross-border cooperation between the law enforcement agencies. Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with that; in fact, it is essential. In all these years, however, the European Parliament has made it clear that common standards for the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights are indispensable in this context. However, the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers from our 27 governments, who, regrettably, are absent today, are still ignoring these demands. Instead, with the principle of mutual recognition of police measures, they are promoting what I can only describe as ‘blind faith’ in the legal systems of the EU Member States. They are ignoring the fact that there are still stark differences between the standards in place in the Member States, particularly in relation to data protection.

The present draft directive, which concerns data protection rules in the area of police cooperation in Europe, is intended to remedy this parlous state of affairs at long last. In truth, it is hardly a major step forward for the rights of the persons concerned, but it is an important first step, in that it would end the dangerous ‘race to the bottom’ in this area of data protection. With the onward march of information exchange, the risk of massive violations of fundamental rights is ever-present. Despite this situation, the Council is refusing to act swiftly and contribute to the process of framing the directive.

As a result, citizens will continue to cast doubt on the legitimacy of further measures for EU-wide police cooperation. We need common minimum standards in order to move closer to enhanced police and judicial cooperation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, speaking as rapporteur for the EU PNR agreement and as a shadow on a number of other European policing measures, I see this directive as essential in increasing the confidence of European citizens in the work that law enforcement agencies carry out.

It is only through applying the highest standards to policing and justice that we create a democracy which has the faith and trust of all its citizens. Therefore I hope this directive achieves two main goals: that of protecting civil liberties and lives, but also that of creating mechanisms which allow for the safe exchange of law enforcement data. In order to address the needs of such a system, I believe that a common-sense approach is the best way forward. But certainly I would stress to other Members of this House that this directive cannot be a solution for everything and every other law enforcement measure, current or future. We must lose no time in pressing forward with our work and it is our duty to protect European citizens as a result.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cornelia Ernst, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, absent representatives of the Council, perhaps you are following the debate on the European Parliament’s videostream, as you clearly have neither the capacity nor the inclination to speak to us live. In my view, the Council’s absence from this debate today shows total disrespect for Parliament. Instead of shying away from this debate, they should explain why they are intent on refusing to make any improvement in the protection of personal data in the police and judicial spheres by means of a directive.

We know that the police and judiciary have been an El Dorado for violations of data protection for years, and not only in relation to SWIFT. Violation has now become routine; for example, the personal data of citizens who participate in anti-Nazi demonstrations are unlawfully collected and stored. We need the same standards of protection in the public and the private sphere and in relation to the police and judiciary. This is essential in order to protect civil rights. The Council expects this House to collaborate constructively on regulations of relevance to data protection, such as EU-PNA, but we expect the same of the Council. I therefore urge the Council to stop stalling on data protection at last!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers for their support of the Commission’s proposals.

I would like to refer again to two main points. Firstly, I would like to reconfirm that, for the Commission, progress on this very important issue means that we are going to negotiate both the regulation and the directive as a package. We really mean it. We have gone through two pieces of legislation, in spite of Parliament’s request, but now we have to focus on the procedure. I would like to confirm to everybody that we are going to insist on that. We are going to negotiate both pieces of legislation as a package.

The second point I would like to stress is that we are going to do our best in order to ensure that the new legislation – the new post-Lisbon legislation on data protection – will be taken into account in terms of all the agreements and proposals that have some relevance to this data protection issue. I think that everybody here understands that this is a major issue, because it refers to human rights; it refers to the basic principles set out in the treaties which, in one way or another, have to guide our decisions.

I know that an impasse has been reached. We would like to overcome it. I would like to say that the Commission is here and that it is really very willing to cooperate in order to overcome the difficulties both with the Council and with Parliament. Of course, we will welcome any initiatives by the Irish Presidency if it, on behalf of the Council, of course, would like to overcome the impasse.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy