Pilns teksts 
Debašu stenogramma
Trešdiena, 2014. gada 15. janvāris - Strasbūra Pārskatītā redakcija

16. ES un ASV nolīgums par datu drošību — turpmākās perspektīvas, ņemot vērā NSA lietu (debates)
Visu runu video

  President. − The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the future of the Safe Harbour Agreement in the light of the NSA affair (2013/2985(RSP)). I would like to inform colleagues that this debate does not allow the blue-card procedure and that is why your request for questions will not be accepted.


  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, honourable Members, over the past six months we have been confronted with a number of increasingly worrying leaks, media reports and allegations related to secret US surveillance programmes impacting on the privacy and personal data of EU citizens. The disclosure of information about the surveillance programmes operated by the US National Security Agency, the NSA, has understandably raised a number of serious concerns. The EU institutions have responded in various ways to these allegations. You have, of course, established your own committee of inquiry, which I understand is due to report shortly.

Separately, an EU-US ad-hoc working group on data protection has been established to look into the legal framework for US surveillance activities impacting on persons resident in the European Union. The EU chairs of this group issued their report on 27 November last year. The Commission also published a communication in November on rebuilding trust in EU-US data flows.

As far as the specific issue of the Safe Harbour is concerned, this is a matter for the Commission, since it is a Commission decision. As part of its reporting duties, the Commission recently issued a communication addressed to Parliament and the Council on the functioning of the Safe Harbour decision. As a first step, the Commission has planned an in-depth discussion of this report between representatives of the Member States within the so-called Article 31 Committee. This will be the start of the review of the functioning of the Safe Harbour scheme, and we understand that this broader review process will involve open consultation and a debate in Parliament and the Council.

The report of the EU Chairs of the EU-US Working Group on Data Protection shows that US law contains a number of legal bases which allow the large-scale collection and processing of personal data that is transferred to the US or is otherwise processed by companies based in the US.

The Safe Harbour decision provides in Annex I that adherence to the privacy principle may be limited to the extent necessary, if justified by national security, public interest or law enforcement requirements. The Commission states in its communication that, while the exceptional processing of data for the purposes of national security is recognised under the Safe Harbour, the large-scale access by intelligence agencies to data transfer to the United States in the context of commercial transactions was not foreseeable at the time of adopting the Safe Harbour.

The Commission communication made 13 recommendations to improve the functioning of the Safe Harbour. As regards access by US authorities to data transferred under the Safe Harbour, three elements are worth mentioning. Firstly, the principles of proportionality and necessity need to be respected. This means addressing possible differences of understanding between the US and the EU over what is necessary and proportionate, in particular for the protection of national security. It also means looking at possible differences of treatment between US citizens and residents and non-US persons.

Secondly, the Commission raises concerns that some of the safeguards provided for under US law are available only to US citizens or legal residents.

The Council has already expressed strong support for these two points made by the Commission. There is a need for equal treatment of EU residents and US persons and recognition of enforceable privacy rights for EU residents on the same basis as for US persons, and a need for enhancing the necessity and proportionality of data collection. As you know, in the US a review is on-going on the functioning of the surveillance programmes, and we strongly hope those points will be taken into account.

The third point raised by the Commission is the need for greater transparency over the data transferred to a company in the US under the Safe Harbour Agreement. The report from the Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technologies set up by President Obama includes a number of recommendations which go some way in this direction. The Commission is now intending to take further contacts with the US in order to seek improvements to the shortcomings it identified in its communication.

While the challenging issue is the NSA surveillance practices, the Commission’s recommendations also address other aspects of the functioning and enforcement of the Safe Harbour scheme. We believe that this is the right way to proceed. Safe Harbour represents a Commission decision based on the 1995 Data Protection Directive. It is therefore within the power of the Commission and not of the Council to amend, suspend or revoke that decision.

There are important issues at stake here. On the one hand, there are all these concerns about intelligence-gathering by a foreign state which happens to be our most important strategic partner; on the other hand, we have to take measures to protect the right to privacy and protection of people in the EU. Ultimately, we can only resolve these matters through dialogue, and we therefore welcome all opportunities for discussion. In particular we encourage the Commission to continue to engage in a constructive, rigorous dialogue with the US authorities on the specific points which it has identified as needing to be addressed.


  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, we have had the opportunity to debate the implication of the NSA revelations this summer on several occasions, both in this Chamber and in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). Those exchanges have been very useful, and I am looking forward to the important conclusions of the LIBE inquiry Committee.

It remains essential to speak with one voice to our US partners and to ensure that the protection of data is properly addressed in this US debate. The exchanges and meetings of the Commission with the US authorities, the visits of the delegations of this Parliament to the US and the work done with the Member States in the EU-US ad-hoc expert group have all been opportunities to highlight our common concerns. Parliament and the Commission have spoken with one voice, and – very importantly – the message was received like this in the United States. It was also made clear in the United States that we need to rebuild trust in our transatlantic relationship and in transatlantic data transfers – a trust which, unfortunately, has been eroded.

As the Presidency has already said, Safe Harbour is an important agreement and an arrangement in this context. It is a responsibility of the Commission. It deals with the transfer of personal data from the EU to companies in the US. The aim of this scheme, which was put in place in the year 2000, was to make sure that our rights are protected at all times according to EU standards, while securing the business advantages which flow from the ability to transfer personal data to the US for processing there.

There are deficiencies, and the Commission is addressing those. As requested by Parliament, we have analysed Safe Harbour, and on 27 November 2013 we issued our analysis and we were clear that Safe Harbour may be not so safe all the time. As a result of the lack of transparency and enforcement of Safe Harbour on the US side, some companies do not, in practice, comply with the scheme. This impacts negatively on individuals’ rights and may create an unfair competitive advantage for those companies over the European companies operating on the same market.

We also take very seriously the risk that Safe Harbour, as a conduit for transfers of personal data, facilitates access by US national security authorities under large scale surveillance programmes. While the Safe Harbour decision allows limitations of protection when justified by national security, they must comply with the principles of proportionality and necessity. Massive collection of data by the authorities on anybody beyond suspicion is certainly not proportionate or necessary. I made it very clear to our American counterparts that this issue needs to be addressed in a satisfactory manner if we want to ensure the continuity of the Safe Harbour scheme.

EU data subjects must have clarity and must be able to believe that, if their data is transferred to the US, it is not routinely screened by the NSA. After all, the purpose of the Safe Harbour agreement was to provide EU data subjects with a higher level of protection than that available under the law in the United States, in order to meet the EU standards of data protection. In a nutshell, Safe Harbour is meant to be an island of EU-style data protection within the US.

The Commission Communication to the Parliament and the Council on the functioning of Safe Harbour identifies 13 crucial points necessary to ensuring the continuity of data protection according to EU standards. The Commission made concrete recommendations in four major areas of improvement which are necessary to be implemented by the US side: on transparency, on the possibility of effective redress, on effective enforcement and on limitations to access by public authorities. With these 13 points, the US authorities now have a to-do list on their desk. I expect them to deliver and to seriously improve the scheme. We should have a first exploratory meeting with the US authorities in Brussels in the near future.

The US Department of Commerce and the US Federal Trade Commission, with whom I have thoroughly discussed this question, should improve the functioning and enforcement of the Safe Harbour agreement. The national security exemption in Safe Harbour must work in a clear and narrow way to ensure that it is only used in cases where it is necessary and proportionate according to the fixed standards.

Our Communication on Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows makes clear that remedies must be identified by the summer of this year, and they should be implemented very soon. We will then review the functioning of the Safe Harbour scheme based on the implementation of these recommendations. This broader review process should involve an open consultation and a debate in the European Parliament.

Making Safe Harbour safer should not, however, distract us from our focus on the data protection reform. A strong legislative framework with clear rules that are enforceable – also when data is transferred and processed abroad – is, more than ever, a must. It will provide legal certainty and protection for data subjects and for companies. Let me therefore congratulate those in this House who have worked very hard on data protection reform. Parliament adopted a strong text which makes clear the Union’s determination. Together, we have to apply pressure on the Council to accelerate its work so that negotiations can start and an agreement can be concluded in line with the European Council conclusions. I am very grateful to the Greek Presidency for the fact that next week there will be an informal Council meeting which will put this subject on the table.


  President. − Colleagues, before starting this debate, once again let me remind you that this debate envisages neither the blue-card procedure nor the catch-the-eye procedure, and that limits the debate to only one representative from each political group.


  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Vizepräsidentin der Kommission, Herr Ratsvertreter! Die heutige Diskussion soll zunächst einmal deutlich machen, dass wir dran bleiben. Als Europäisches Parlament wollen wir, dass die NSA-Diskussion lebendig bleibt, sowohl als Signal an die Bürger in Europa, dass wir uns darum kümmern, als auch an unsere Freunde in Amerika. Der politische Rahmen ist dabei klar: Die NSA-Veröffentlichungen, das Ausmaß, das uns dabei deutlich geworden ist, waren für viele von uns unvorstellbar. Dann kam zwischendurch der Vergleich mit Russland und China hoch. Aber wir haben es ja natürlich bei Amerika mit unseren Freunden zu tun. Deswegen muss es einen Unterschied geben, wie wir miteinander umgehen.

Die ersten Antworten waren richtig, politisch zunächst: Ein Dank an die Kommission und an unsere Kommissarin, die in Washington klare und deutliche Worte gefunden hat! Unser Untersuchungsausschuss hier im Haus, und ich hoffe, auch der klare und unmissverständliche Druck unserer Mitgliedstaaten gegenüber den Vereinigten Staaten. Ich hoffe, er wirkt.

Wir müssen wirtschaftlich antworten mit den Standards, die Europa gewähren kann, und wir müssen uns gesetzgeberisch Gedanken machen, und da sind wir gefordert. Deswegen fordert die Europäische Volkspartei, dass wir das Safe-Harbour-Abkommen kündigen. Wir brauchen Druck auf Washington. Wir brauchen Druck auf unsere Partner, weil zu Recht die Frage im Raum steht, ob die USA nach wie vor ein safe harbour sind oder ob sie es nicht mehr sind. Safe harbour war das Prinzip des Binnenmarkts: Gegenseitiger Respekt vor den jeweiligen Datenschutzstandards. Diese US-Standards reichen bisher aus, um Zugang zum europäischen Markt zu bekommen.

Wir arbeiten derzeit am europäischen Datenschutzrecht. Allen ist klar, dass wir dieses europäische Datenschutzrecht nur zur Hälfte werden umsetzen können, nämlich nur für die EU-Firmen, wenn wir safe harbour nicht auf den Prüfstand stellen. Deswegen müssen wir, wenn wir das Prinzip umsetzen wollen, dass alle Angebote, alle Dienstleistungen, die in Europa erbracht werden unter europäischem Recht, mit europäischen Spielregeln durchzuführen sind. Deswegen müssen wir safe harbour auf den Prüfstand stellen. Das vor allem deswegen, weil die Digitalisierung erst am Beginn steht. Wir werden in den nächsten Jahren und Jahrzehnten erleben, dass sie unser Leben komplett verändern wird.

Der zweite Grund, warum wir safe harbour kündigen wollen, ist die Hoffnung, dass Washington versteht, dass wir es als Europäer ernst meinen mit einer Veränderung der Partnerschaft, dass wir es ernst meinen damit, dass Washington umsteuern muss, dass Washington neu denken muss, und dass wir deutlich machen, dass wir nicht mehr akzeptieren, dass es Bürger – oder besser gesagt Verbraucher – erster und zweiter Klasse gibt, dass bei der Frage des Datenstandards zwischen Europäern und Amerikanern unterschieden wird.

Zentral wird auch sein – da möchten wir die Kommissarin noch einmal deutlich unterstützen –, dass wir die Klagemöglichkeit für EU-Bürger und EU-Firmen in Amerika einfordern. Das muss Washington endlich verstehen.

Die Europäische Volkspartei will die Partnerschaft, wir wollen die enge Partnerschaft mit den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Wir würden mit einer Kündigung des Safe-Harbour-Abkommens den Weg freimachen, diese Partnerschaft auf eine neue Grundlage zu stellen, die dann den Namen Partnerschaft verdient.


  Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, following on from that speech, I have to say that, if there is a symbolic and practical aspect of the Parliament inquiry into mass surveillance that is appropriate for this week in Strasbourg, it must be Safe Harbour, because it affects EU citizens and their data and it affects the commercial and business aspects. That has become both a practical factor and a symbol of the problem that we have with EU data transfers and the problem that we have with trust between the European Union and the United States, and it has become symbolic of what we have to fix.

Safe Harbour has in many respects become the symbol of what we have in this inquiry and the task that we have. So, in the European Parliament inquiry and my draft report drawn up with the help of the shadow rapporteurs, who are sitting here, and the working document from Axel Voss, all the hard work that has been performed over the last few months has led to the recommendation to suspend the Safe Harbour decision to allow for the transfer of EU citizens’ data and to ensure that we have another mechanism which reflects our higher standard of privacy and data protection in the EU. The idea that you have – I think Mr Weber put it very well – a first-class and second-class standard for citizens or for businesses is unacceptable.

So what are we saying about Safe Harbour that is so symbolic and practical? First, we talk about the weaknesses and the lack of information available. We have seen in the inquiry clear evidence of non-compliant companies continuing to remain on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) website as being compliant, lack of enforcement procedures from the FTC, as well as no adequate complaint mechanisms in place to ensure redress for EU citizens and accountability of companies. That is the evidence that we have seen. Data collected from EU citizens is being transferred to the US with extremely weak safeguards in place and in the knowledge that the US has lower data protection standards that exist here in the EU.

Safe Harbour, as it stands, does not offer EU citizens any protection against data access requests by the NSA under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) or the Patriot Act in the US, and we have to ask the Commission to consider the vast electronic surveillance carried out by the US as a breach of the present wording of Safe Harbour and limitations for national security.

While the Commission has already recognised the serious inadequacies in relation to Safe Harbour, their 13 recommendations to the FTC in the US may not be enough. This procedure may lack any real enforceability, as it is void of any real obligations on the US to take these seriously. So in these last few seconds I would say to the Commission: you and we are speaking with one voice to Washington, but we must treat Safe Harbour as that symbolic and practical aspect of our inquiry that needs to be fixed with the United States in order to recreate trust with the United States and to ensure that our inquiry has real meaning in rebuilding the regulation of protection as something meaningful between us and the United States.


  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for her words and her proposal. It is good, but, frankly, not good enough.

We have known for many years – way before the Snowden revelations – that Safe Harbour was faulty and that it provided no more than a symbolic protection. It is not providing any protection for European citizens, but only legal coverage for companies processing data between the EU and the US in the knowledge that they are violating EU rules. Because we did not want to make trouble for those companies caught between two conflicting jurisdictions, we have tolerated the situation for many years. We have asked the Commission repeatedly, for many years, to come up with a solution, but the Commission did not act. As a matter of fact, this famous evaluation of the Safe Harbour arrangement – because it is not actually an agreement – came, I think, two years after the deadline.

So why now give more time to the Commission and to the United States to come up with a solution? We know what the problem is. We know it does not function and, quite frankly, I am also losing my patience with companies. As I said, we have tolerated the situation for many years in order to give them a break, and what have they done in return? They have mounted a massive lobby in order to further water down data protection standards. As far as I am concerned, we should suspend the Safe Harbour Agreement today. Maybe that will create the necessary sense of urgency for the Commission, the US Administration and the companies to start working on a serious solution, because it is about time this House and the Commission stood up for the rights and the protection of individual EU citizens. These should take precedence over international relations and even over business interests. It pains me to say this because I am a market liberal, but it is time that companies also took responsibility.

In conclusion, I expect the Commission to suspend Safe Harbour today and make sure that we get an adequate solution soon, before the elections.


  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Edward Snowden’s revelations have shown that we need better protection for our personal data. The way in which the big data business and our intelligence services are invading our privacy and analysing our lives today is outrageous. But although millions of citizens and consumers publicly complain about this, not a single EU government is taking action to stop it. Here too I hear no consequences.

Instead, the voice of Google, Eric Schmidt, calls privacy an anomaly and wants us to say goodbye to privacy and data protection. The US Internet companies from Silicon Valley successfully lobbied against any regulation of their data collection activities in Washington D.C. Here in Europe they just ignored them. By using the Safe Harbour decision they evade effective enforcement by European authorities.

We are at the point where all of this has to stop, and it is this Parliament which has the power to do so. We have been insisting on the adoption of a single European data protection law for over two years now. Meanwhile, our colleagues in the Council of Ministers just went around in circles and in lengthy debates, without the willingness to determine even their own position on an effective privacy and data protection framework.

And the big data business from Silicon Valley says ‘Thank youʼ, while the European Unions’ citizens and consumers lose their trust in our governments’ ability to protect even the most fundamental rights they have.

If we do not stop the circumvention of European rules by US companies by passing our single data protection regulation and putting pressure on the United States – and also by cancelling the Safe Harbour decision – we will not only lose the sovereignty of the European Union but we will also lose the voters, who will stay at home, as they do not expect us to protect their interests and rights.


  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wie soll es eigentlich mit unseren Beziehungen zu den Vereinigten Staaten weitergehen? Wollen wir – frage ich die Kommissarin – gewissermaßen als souveräne Partnerin gegenüber den USA auftreten und unsere Rechte einklagen? Oder spielen wir die „Großer Bruder sei doch wieder gut!“-Nummer, über die ganz Amerika lacht? Natürlich ist safe harbour als Prinzip eine gute Sache, aber in der Realität eine absolute Farce!

Schon mit dem Patriot Act werden Abkommen und Grundrechte zum Teufel gejagt! Eine unabhängige Kontrolle ergab, dass das Abkommen wirklich nur ein Papiertiger ist, ein Drittel der Unternehmen unternehmen noch nicht einmal im Falle von Verstößen gegen das Abkommen irgendetwas. Es gibt keine transparente Kontrolle, keine Rechtsmittel können eingelegt werden. Die Vorschläge der Kommission sind vielleicht gut gemeint, aber überhaupt nicht hinreichend und der falsche Weg!

Wir brauchen hohe Datenschutzstandards, verpflichtend für alle Unternehmen, ein wirksames und transparentes Kontrollsystem. Safe-Harbour-Regeln, oder wie auch immer sie bezeichnet werden, müssen in einem Rahmendatenschutzabkommen mit den USA verbindlich festgeschrieben sein und nicht länger von den USA blockiert werden, denn das passiert ja. Die Entwicklung dieses Abkommens wird blockiert, hier geht es keinen Zentimeter nach vorn.

Die USA müssen aufhören – das müssen wir klar und deutlich sagen –, Millionen unschuldiger EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürger auszuschnüffeln. Wir als Nicht-US-Bürger sind gewissermaßen Freiwild. Und ich sage, wir dürfen nicht länger als Freiwild behandelt werden, wenn wir in die USA kommen.

Nach Artikel 3 Absatz 4 des Abkommens kann dieses ausgesetzt oder gekündigt werden, wenn es nicht umgesetzt werden kann. Ich erwarte, dass – dies an die Kommission – in diesem Sinne im Respekt vor den Grundrechten von über 500 Millionen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern auch gehandelt wird!


  Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I will be provocative, but let us get back to real life. National governments and their security agencies are vested with preserving the well-being of their citizens, and we have to bear in mind the fact that the reason why we enjoy this high quality of security in the EU and US is because of these safety mechanisms.

In no way am I saying that basic citizens’ rights should be compromised. In fact these programmes ensure the exact opposite, protecting citizens’ data privacy. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like all of you to recall the terrorist attack in Boston last year during the marathon. If it were not for the surveillance cameras, the terrorists would never have been identified. Europe is an example of liberal parliamentary democracy, and we should endorse and trust our legislation when it deals with intelligence activities aimed at ensuring the security of our citizens.


  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). - Herr Präsident! Ich kann mich noch sehr gut an die 90er-Jahre erinnern. Damals hat das Internet so einen richtig großen Kommerzialisierungsschub erfahren, und es hat sich erstmals eine große Gegenbewegung etabliert, die die Vision von einem freien und postökonomischen Internet formuliert hat. Das war eine Utopie, das ist richtig. Und von dieser Utopie ist eigentlich überhaupt nichts übrig geblieben, ganz im Gegenteil, es hat sich eine Dystopie verwirklicht.

Man muss wirklich deutlich sagen, dass die ganzen Schutzmechanismen, die wir haben, auch ein Safe-Harbour-Abkommen zum Beispiel, überhaupt nicht greifen, dass die Aufarbeitung des Skandals nicht funktioniert, dass Reformen überhaupt nicht vorankommen, ganz im Gegenteil, dass teilweise vom Rat, von den Mitgliedstaaten, teilweise auch von der Kommission blockiert wird.

Was wir brauchen, ist Entschlossenheit. Wir brauchen endlich eine Trendumkehr. Wir brauchen einen europäischen Aktionsplan. Wir brauchen Reformen im Bereich der Internet-Governance, im Bereich Datenschutz, im Bereich Internetwirtschaft und im Bereich der demokratischen Kontrolle der Geheimdienste. Wenn wir das nicht bekommen, dann hat das, was wir heute hier besprechen, auch keinen Sinn. Und wir brauchen diese Reformen nicht morgen, sondern wir brauchen sie heute!


  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I have understood your message. You certainly have understood too that, as requested by Parliament, we have analysed the Safe Harbour regime and, on the basis of the work of the ad-hoc group and our discussions with European businesses, we have identified the deficiencies. I agree with what you said about these deficiencies; those are also the conclusions to which we came.

On the basis of those conclusions, the Commission produced 13 concrete recommendations which relate to all the aspects of the scheme: transparency, redress, enforcement and access for national security purposes.

So those are the 13 ways to improve the functioning of Safe Harbour. These 13 requests are now on the table of the American government. It is a to-do-list, and it is up to the American government to recognise the seriousness of our concerns. I think that the debate which has taken place today in this House will help us to move forward on this one.

The remedies should be identified by summer 2014 – that is what the Commission put on the table. Then it will be for the College to look at whether these remedies have been put in place – yes or no – and then to take a decision. You can be sure that I will report back to the President of the College and to the College about the discussion which has taken place here today.


  Dimitrios Kourkoulas, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, the only way to address the important issue raised in this debate is by engaging in a dialogue with the United States. Under the Safe Harbour Decision, that responsibility falls to the Commission, and I would strongly urge that the Commission be given sufficient time and confidence to do this.

Like this House, the Council will be closely following the Commission’s action with regard to the Safe Harbour Decision. Many of the concerns that have been raised in Parliament are valid ones, but we must allow the Commission and the US authorities sufficient time to address these points.

In the course of a few months, the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies set up by President Obama has produced a report. Your Parliament will vote on the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs’ committee of inquiry. We must now allow adequate time to enable the most appropriate action to be taken in order to address the points raised.


  President. − The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)


  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. – Desde o início que o Acordo Porto Seguro foi alvo de uma enorme controvérsia política. Era imprescindível encontrar uma solução para fazer face ao problema da falta de adequação do quadro jurídico de privacidade dos EUA e à necessidade de encontrar um instrumento que oferecesse um nível mais adequado de proteção dos dados pessoais dos cidadãos europeus. Infelizmente, não foi a melhor solução. Este regime carece de transparência e proporcionalidade e permite uma discriminação em relação aos direitos dos cidadãos europeus, por não existir um direito individual a um recurso judicial, não existir uma obrigação por parte das empresas de pagar uma compensação no caso de existir um tratamento ilegal dos dados, bem como o facto dos sistemas de proteção americanos não se aplicarem a cidadãos europeus. Só com as recentes revelações da vigilância maciça eletrónica dos cidadãos da UE, por parte da NSA e o concreto envolvimento de empresas de comunicação eletrónica autocertificadas no âmbito do Porto Seguro, é que finalmente se resolveu proceder à sua avaliação, de forma a identificar as deficiências fundamentais e proceder à sua revisão. Lamento que tenha sido necessário assistirmos a um escândalo tão grave para, finalmente, se colocar a questão fundamental se este Acordo é verdadeiramente um Porto Seguro e se vale a pena mantê-lo.


  Franz Obermayr (NI), schriftlich. Selbst die Kommission hat bereits eingeräumt, dass die im Rahmen des Safe Harbor-Abkommens vereinbarten Datenschutzstandards von US-Unternehmen nicht eingehalten werden. Dies ginge zu Lasten der europäischen Bürger und Unternehmen. Es müsse deshalb zunächst eine Aussetzung des Abkommens verfügt werden, der weitere Schritte folgen müssten. So sei es unabdingbar, eine strenge Datenschutzgrundverordnung mit abschreckenden Sanktionen auf den Weg zu bringen und unsere Standards bei den aktuell laufenden Gesprächen zur transatlantischen Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft (THIP) zu verteidigen. Zudem seien die Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten des EU-Parlaments dahingehend aufzuwerten, dass nicht mehr die Kommission alleine über die Gültigkeit von Ausnahmen zum EU-Datenschutz befinden dürfe. Wenn die Kommission selbst Datenschutz-Mängel bezüglich Safe Harbor zugesteht, fordere ich sie auf konsequenterweise das Abkommen im Sinne der Bürger auszusetzen beziehungsweise neu zu verhandeln. Eine Weitergabe europäischer Daten an die USA darf nicht durch ein Abkommen legitimiert werden, auf das US-Unternehmen in der Praxis offensichtlich pfeifen.


  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE) , írásban. A Safe Harbour Egyezményt az Európai Bizottság és az USA azzal a céllal hívta életre, hogy áthidalja az eltérő adatvédelmi irányelvekből fakadó problémákat. Az EU területén működő amerikai cégek felülvizsgálat nélkül továbbíthatnak európai adatokat az USA-ba. A szövetségi kereskedelmi bizottság követi nyomon, hogy az adatok továbbításakor a cégek eleget tettek-e az egyezményben rögzített hét alapelvnek. Az NSA-ügy kirobbanása után az Európai Parlamentben sokakban felmerült az az aggály, hogy európai állampolgárok és gazdasági szereplők kényes adatai kerülhetnek át különösebb kontroll nélkül amerikai adatbázisokba. Az Európai Bizottság 13 pontos javaslata javításokat hajtana végre az egyezményen az átláthatóság, a jogorvoslat, a végrehajtás és az adatokhoz történő hozzáférés tekintetében. Az Európai Parlamentben viszont sokan az egyezmény azonnali felfüggesztése mellett érveltek. Magam hajlanék arra, hogy várjuk meg a Bizottság 2014 nyarán elkészülő jelentését arról, hogy az USA eleget tett-e a bizottsági javaslatoknak és ennek tükrében döntsünk az egyezmény esetleges felfüggesztéséről. Az EP többsége hajlik a TFTP felfüggesztésére is. Magam egy ilyen lépést elhamarkodottnak és felelőtlennek tartanék. A TFTP a terrorizmus elleni harc kiemelkedően fontos eszköze. Mivel sem a Bizottság, sem az Europol nem tud arról, bárki visszaélt volna a TFTP nyújtotta információkkal, nem tartanám szerencsésnek a terrorelhárítás „rohamszerű” meggyengítését és felesleges biztonsági kockázatok létrehozását.

Juridisks paziņojums - Privātuma politika