Commission Vice President Franco Frattini is responsible for
justice and security and is yet to make a formal proposal to the
Commission, but he is determined to see passenger name records
(PNR) passed to governments for European flights. "He came up with
the idea in London last week where he was discussing terrorism,"
said a spokesman for Frattini.
The move comes as 11 people are charged in relation to alleged
plans to blow up airliners bound for America from the UK. "After
events in London, he decided to step up security a level," said the
spokesman.
The sharing of passenger data has proved highly controversial.
An agreement between the US and the European Commission to force
airlines to give US authorities 34 pieces of information per
passenger was opposed by the European Parliament and declared
illegal by the European Court of Justice.
"The proposal is that European governments have access to the
same 34 pieces of information on exactly the same principles
as that with the US," said the spokesman for Frattini. "The
information would be handed to the government of the country a
person was flying to and would only be used for anti-terrorism
purposes."
Data would be likely to be held for three years, as in the US
deal, said the spokesman. The plan must be formally put to the
Commission and then to the Council of Ministers for approval.
The Commission has until September to come up with a new
agreement with the US. It says that the new agreement will be
substantially the same as the old one, but will comply with the
ECJ's demand for a technical legal amendment.
The ECJ said that the agreement was drafted in relation to the
wrong European laws and was therefore illegal; this meant that the
Court did not proceed to rule on the Parliament's concerns about
data protection. The Commission claimed this as a victory for the
content of its deal, something on which the Court has not yet had
the opportunity to rule.
"The Commission seems to be going down the path of exploiting
the ECJ judgment. It announced that the content of the current
agreement has not been criticised by the Court and should therefore
continue," said Dr Chris Pounder, a data protection specialist with
Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM. "This is
economical with the truth. Because the Court ruled that the
agreement was unlawful it didn't deal with the substantial data
protection issues raised by the Parliament. These still
remain."
The European Data Protection Supervisor had joined the European
Parliament in expressing concerns about the data protection
implications of the US plan. "My own view is that the Information
Commissioners have been sidelined," said Pounder. "The working
party [Article 29 Working Party on data protection] said that this
is excessive, and the European Commission are saying 'look, we're
having security responsibilities, the privacy angle must take
second place'."
Frattini's office recognises that the decision will provoke some
anger. "This will be somewhat controversial, there will be some
countries that will be reluctant to comply," said the
spokesman.
Footnote: Dr Chris Pounder was a consultant with Pinsent Masons until September 2008. He now runs a new training business, Amberhawk.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
