| Author (Person) | Crosbie, Judith |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.12, No.21, 1.6.06 |
| Publication Date | 01/06/2006 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By Judith Crosbie Date: 01/06/06 Members of the European Parliament have reacted angrily to the Commission's claim that it will not alter the content of the airline passenger-data agreement with the US. Some MEPs have left open the possibility of legally challenging any new agreement that the Commission comes up with. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 30 May annulled the deal saying the Commission had used the wrong legal basis for it. But the concerns of Parliament, which brought the legal challenge, were primarily about civil liberties and the fact that the EU was handing over sensitive information on European citizens to the US authorities without proper safeguards. The Parliament's civil liberties committee will seek an "open debate" with Franco Frattini, the commissioner for justice, freedom and security, and the president of the Council of Ministers, according to a letter from the chairman of the committee, Jean-Marie Cavada to Josep Borrell, the President of the Parliament. Cavada says he intends to consult national parliaments on the matter given that they "were de facto excluded from the political debate...when the first deal was done with the American administration". Other MEPs also insisted that their views be taken into account. "Parliament has raised a number of concerns on fundamental rights and we are clear that whatever new agreement the Commission comes up with these concerns should not be ignored," said Stavros Lambrinidis, a Socialist MEP and vice-chairman of the civil liberties committee. Dutch Green MEP Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg said that if Parliament was not happy at any new deal agreed, the possibility of taking it to the ECJ would be left open. Graham Watson, chairman of the Liberal-Democrats, was adamant that the Parliament must confront the Commission on the issue. "I would be very surprised if Parliament didn't challenge it...the Commission cannot fail to be aware of Parliament and public concerns on the content," he said. The Commission insisted that the court simply took issue with the legal basis under which the agreement was brought. "The court annulled it for legal reasons, it did not make a point on the content of the agreement," said Frattini shortly after the ruling. The court said that the agreement should not have been brought under 'first pillar' of EU law, which mainly deals with internal market issues. The court gave until 30 September to correct the problem. The Commission's response would be to introduce the agreement under the 'third pillar' of community law, which deals with justice and security matters, said officials. They added that they were satisfied with how the US was collecting and processing airline passenger data. Not all MEPs were unhappy with the Commission's response. UK Socialist Michael Cashman, member of the civil liberties committee, said that he was opposed to the Parliament mounting a legal challenge to any new agreement. "If Parliament was to go down this route it would be political immaturity in the extreme," he said. "This is about protecting fundamental rights and there is no greater fundamental right than the right to life." The agreement with the US on the transfer of airline passenger data was done in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks when American authorities began demanding information from European airlines on people travelling into the US. The data includes passengers' names, addresses, forms of payment, phone numbers and contact details in the US. Article reports on reactions from the European Parliament to the European Commission's claim that it would not alter the content of the airline passenger-data agreement with the US. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had on 30 May 2006 annulled the deal saying the Commission had used the wrong legal basis for it. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry, Security and Defence, Values and Beliefs |
| Countries / Regions | Europe, United States |
