State of play regarding the negotiations with Australia, the US and Canada on the use and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data

22.6.2011

Question for oral answer O-000159/2011
to the Commission
Rule 115
Jan Philipp Albrecht
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

1. Can the Commission clarify in detail its assessment of the conformity of the EU-Australia agreement on PNR with fundamental rights and EU legislation, as well as with the criteria set out in European Parliament resolutions P7_TA(2010)0144 and P7_TA(2010)0397? Can the Commission explain in particular how it has established that the collection and use of PNR meets the legal requirements of necessity and proportionality?
2. Can the Commission clarify how, in the context of Article 218 TFEU, it intends to implement Articles 23 and 25 of the EU-Australia agreement (on dispute resolution, suspension and termination) in the event that the European Parliament, voting with an absolute majority, calls for the application of those articles?
3. Given that the transfer of PNR by carriers is a requirement of Australian law, the purpose of the EU-Australia agreement is exclusively to ensure that data transfer takes place in conformity with EU data protection law. Does the Commission agree that Article 16 TFEU is an adequate legal basis for the Council decision?
4. Given that a uniform agreed definition of profiling, also based on international documents in force, could help in assessing the links between the collection and processing of PNR data and profiling activities, would the Commission agree to work on such a definition?
5. Pending the outcome of further negotiations with the US and Canada, can the Commission provide information about general criteria to ensure respect for the principles of necessity and proportionality, particularly regarding the scope and retention periods? Can it give a full overview of possible bilateral agreements between the US and Member States containing a reference to the transfer of PNR? Can the Commission clarify the forthcoming legislation that makes provision for the systematic transfer of PNR from Canada to the US?
6. Can the Commission clarify the relationship between the US Secure Flight programme and the collection of PNR data?
7. Does the Commission consider the frequency of ad hoc PULLs by the US authorities from the systems of carriers that are already using the PUSH method, in line with the provisions of the existing agreement with the US?
8. Are negotiations between the Commission and the United States ongoing? What consequences does the Commission draw from the legal opinion of its own legal service?

Tabled: 22.6.2011

Forwarded: 24.6.2011

Deadline for reply: 1.7.2011