sou · H5B358 · 2017-06-22 00:00:00 — However, this issue is not covered by the terms of reference of the inquiry. Data protection (Chapter 13) According to its terms of reference, is to analyse the relationship between the Agreement and the Memoran- dum of Cooperation on air transport preclearance in and the EU’s new data protection legislation in order to ensure that the proposed statutory provisions do not conflict with ’s obli- gations under EU law. The analysis has led to the following con- clusions. •Processing of personal data under the Agreement and the Memo- randum of Cooperation on air transport preclearance that is car- ried out by a competent authority and takes place in an auto- mated or systematised with the aim of upholding public order and security within the preclearance area is covered by the scope of the Data Protection Directive. Customs and Border Protection is to be considered a competent authority in applying the Data Protection Directive. •The processing of personal data that preclearance officers will perform in with the support of the Agreement on air transport preclearance and that takes place with a purpose other than maintaining public order and security is covered by the scope of the Protection Regulation. •The bears responsibility for ensuring that the processing of personal data under the Data Protection Regulation is legal. bears responsibility for ensuring that the is able to fulfil the requirements of the Data Protection Regulation. Through the provision in the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation on the collection of personal data from travellers for preclearance purposes, has ensured that the processing of personal data within the scope of the Data Protection Regulation rests on a legal foundation. •There is no need for separate provisions on the processing of personal data that will take place under the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation on air transport preclearance. However, a provision of an informative nature is to be included in the new Act, stating that the processing of personal data under the Agreement and Memorandum of Cooperation on air tran- sport preclearance must take place in line with US law and obser- ving applicable provisions in Swedish and EU law. Furthermore, the provision in the Agreement on air transport preclearance whereby personal data may only be obtained by preclearance offi- cers when travellers have given their consent is to be implemen- ted by means of an equivalent provision in the new Act. Immunity and privileges (Chapter 14) According to its terms of reference, is to submit proposals for the statutory regulation required to ensure that employees of the Government of the are cover- ed by privileges and immunity to the extent set out in the Agree- ment and the Memorandum of Cooperation. makes the following assessment on this issue. •For employees of the Government of the carrying out preclearance screening under the Agreement, their family members who belong to their households, and employees of the Government of the carrying out duties under the Memorandum of Cooperation, immunity and privileges are to apply to the extent set out in the Agreement on air transport preclearance. Official archives and documents, including electro- nic files and documents used by employees of the Government of the working in the preclearance area at Airport shall enjoy inviolability to the extent that follows from the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation. The same is to apply to such files and documents that employees of the Government of the performing duties under the Memorandum of Cooperation use in conjunction with the Memorandum of Cooperation. Provisions regarding this are to be incorporated into the Act on Immunity and Privileges in Certain Cases. •Employees of the Government of the performing duties under the Agreement and the Memorandum of Coopera- tion are not covered by Swedish social insurance. No legislative measures need to be implemented in this respect. •Family members of employees of the Government of the carrying out preclearance screening under the Agreement and who belong to their households, are to be considered to be resident and to work in only to the extent that this is compatible with what follows from the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation. Provisions on this must be incur- porated in the Social Insurance Code. •The undertakings in the Agreement on privileges regarding taxa- tion are to be implemented by means of the proposed provision in the Act on Immunity and Privileges in Certain Cases. There is no need for additional legislation. •A new provision is to be added to the Customs Exemption Act (SFS 1994:1547) stating that customs exemption applies to goods declared for release into free circulation for employees of the Government of the performing preclearance scree- ning under the Agreement to the extent that follows from the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation. The same is to apply to their accompanying family members who form part of these peoples’ households, and for employees of the Government of the performing duties under the Memorandum of Cooperation. •Employees of the Government of the performing preclearance screening under the Agreement, their family mem- bers, and employees of the Government of the per- forming duties under the Memorandum of Cooperation require a permit for their stay in . Current provisions ought to provide support for granting permits to the extent required to all three of the categories of person concerned. •Preclearance officers, their family members and employees of the Government of the performing duties under the Memorandum of Cooperation are covered by the provisions on work permits in Swedish legislation on foreign aliens. They thus need a work permit in order to work in . Current provi- sions ought to provide support for granting all three of the cate- gories of person concerned work permits to the extent required. There is therefore no need for legislation to fulfil the Agreement in these respects. •According to the Agreement, members of the family forming part of the household of employees of the Government of the assigned to preclearance duties shall be exempt from any employment authorization fees in . This exemp- tion is to be implemented by means of the proposed provision in the Act on Immunity and Privileges in Certain Cases. There is no need for additional legislation. •Preclearance officers, their family members and employees of the Government of the performing duties under the Memorandum of Cooperation will be registered in the Swedish population register if they meet the general requirements of Sec- tion 3 of the Population Registration Act. •Family members forming part of the household of employees of the Government of the assigned to preclearance duties under the Agreement will be able to participate free of charge in education at compulsory school, upper secondary school and higher education level in without the intro- duction of any particular provisions in this regard. •There is no need to introduce any specific legislation on issuing ID or other necessary documents for preclearance officers, their accompanying family members and employees of the Govern- ment of the performing duties under the Memo- randum of Cooperation. Migration-related issues (Chapter 15) If third country citizens denied entry into the at preclearance screening at Airport seek asy- lum in , certain consequences may arise regarding responsi- bility for these people. According to the terms of reference of , the inquiry is to analyse the practical con- sequences of this for Swedish government agencies affected tasked with examining asylum claims, reception and return. The assessment of the Committee is that the system of preclear- ance on departure from will not affect the handling by Swedish government agencies of cases regarding third country citi- zens denied entry to the and who then choose to seek asylum in . will the distribution of responsibilities be- tween Swedish agencies in these cases be affected by preclearance in . This assessment also applies if the asylum seeker is in the transit area. Information and responsibilities for (Chapter 16) , which is a limited liability company owned by the , owns and runs Airport and has a central role under the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation on preclearance at Airport. According to its terms of reference, the Committee is to analyse the role and re- sponsibilities of , in legal and operational terms, in implementing and operating the preclearance facility. In this respect the Committee makes the following assessment. •The obligations of regarding the separate security screening are to be regulated by legislation. The obligations of in general under the Agreement and the Memo- randum of Cooperation on preclearance are en- compassed by the company’s articles of association. should be charged with fulfilling these undertakings regarding preclearance by means of instructions from its owner. •Cooperation with the authorities is encompassed by the articles of association of . Cooperation be- tween and affected Swedish government agencies due to the preclearance screening can take place within the remit of existing cooperation. •It is in the interest of the owner and the operational management to follow up the company’s tasks regarding pre- clearance in detail. What is to be followed up and how this is to take place are questions that can be determined by the usual means in dialogue between the owner, i.e. the , and the operational management. Responsibility for costs (Chapter 17) Costs of preclearance in The Agreement states that is to compensate the for the costs incurred by the state as a result of the preclearance measures. There is therefore no need to regulate the company’s undertakings in this respect in addition to that set out by the Agreement. Should such a need nevertheless arise, it can be met by means of instructions from the company’s owner. The issue of whether costs should ultimately be borne by demands considerations that are beyond the remit of . The costs of the separate security screening to be carried out immediately before the preclearance screening Although there is no explicit provision in the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation stating that is to bear the costs of the separate security screening, a cost liability for must be considered a natural consequence of the fact that it is , through , that is responsible for the screening and it out using Swedish personnel. To eradicate all doubt that the responsibilities of also include the financial re- sponsibility, this needs to be regulated by legislation. This respon- sibility can be stated in the provision on the company’s operational responsibility that the Committee proposes be incorporated in the new Swedish Preclearance Act. There should be an opportunity for to pass on the costs of the separate security screening to airlines and thus ulti- to passengers. The costs may be passed on in line with two models that differ in principle. In the first model, the GAS model, the costs are compulsory and are passed on to the entire passenger collective in line with the same model that applies to the costs of general security screening that all air passengers in undergo. In the second model, the modified user model, can pass on all or part of the costs to the airlines that use the preclearance facility on departure from Airport. The company may also choose to meet all or part of the costs itself. Irrespective of the model chosen, its application must be regulated in legislation. Based on information from , the has judged that the fee per passenger that the charges airlines would increase by – from today’s if the GAS system also covered the separate security screening. If the costs were instead allocated in line with the modified user model, in other words only between the airlines that make use of the opportunity to carry out preclearance in , the Swedish Tran- sport Agency judges that the fee per passenger that would be charg- ed by the airlines for the separate security screening would amount to between and calculated based on fully covering the costs of . Here, too, the calculation is based on in- formation provided by the company. Application of the GAS model is conditional upon there being no legal obstacles to allowing the system to also cover the costs of the separate security screening. The fee that would be added for the separate security screening in the GAS system is a tax in the view of the Committee. The reason for this is that the fee would be com- pulsory for all airlines using Swedish airports, but only the com- panies that choose to make use of the opportunity for preclearance on departure would receive a benefit in return in the form of security screening. It would not be formally or practically possible to design a regulatory framework in which part of the charge paid by the airlines is tax and part is a fee. If the GAS system were to be applied, this would also mean that the majority of the re- gulatory framework for this part of the charge would need to be incorporated in law due to the provisions of the Instrument of Government. There are therefore legal obstacles to applying the GAS model to the charge for the separate security screening. In the light of this, the modified user model should be used if the costs of the separate security screening arising for are to be passed on further to the airlines. The regulatory system for the modified user model needs to be designed independently from the provisions on the GAS system. However, because both systems have significant similarities, several provisions referring to the GAS system may be used as a template for the modified user model. The new regulatory framework will be incorporated in the new Swedish Preclearance Act with the associated ordinance proposed by the Committee. Other issues addressed by the Committee (Chapter 18) ’s proposals and the EU Customs Code According to the terms of reference, the inquiry is to analyse the relationship with EU law, including customs regulation in EU law, in order to ensure that the proposed statutory provisions do not come into conflict with ’s obligations under EU law. judges that the Agreement and the Memoran- dum of Cooperation on air transport preclearance do not conflict with Union Customs Code, i.e. Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. Because the Committee submits no proposals for sta- tutory regulation that affect the Customs Code, no conflict with ’s obligations under EU law therefore arises. Protection under criminal law for officials exercising public authority The Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation on preclearance on departure from contain no provisions on protection under criminal law for the preclearance officers and other employees of the government of the working in within the remit of preclearance screening in . do the terms of reference of the inquiry address the issue. Protection under criminal law in this respect requires legislation. Should the issue of such protection later become relevant, this can be achieved by means of a special provision in the act proposed to implement the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation. The provision could then be designed such that preclearance officers and employees of the government of the carrying out duties under the Memorandum of Cooperation are to be comparable with Swedish government employees in terms of protection under criminal law. Consequences of the Committee’s proposals (Chapter 19) ’s proposals will result in additional duties for the Swedish Authority, Swedish Customs and the Swedish Tran- sport Agency. These agencies probably currently have access to the competence that these duties demand. The costs of some of the duties to be allocated to the will be covered by income from charges that the agency is able to dispose over. It is judged that the remaining additional costs of the will be able to be managed within the scope of existing appropriation limits for the agency’s tax-funded operations and operations for which fees are charged. The additional charges that may arise for the Swedish Authority and Swedish Customs may in the view of the Committee be handled within the scope of existing appropriations. Activities of other agencies are not affected to any material extent by the Committee’s proposals. up, organising and running the separate security screening for which the company is to have a statutory responsibility under the Committee’s proposals is a major undertaking for . has the competence and experience to carry out these operations. chooses to make use of the opportunity to further pass on the costs of the separate security screening, the company will not incur any additional costs for this security screening. The other obligations that has under the Agree- ment and the Memorandum of Cooperation, such as providing pre- mises for preclearance screening and paying the ’ costs of this preclearance screening at the right time, are to be regulated by instructions from the company’s owner. These duties will demand resources at . The additional costs that may arise as a consequence of this can be considered to be part of the cost side in the commercial cost-income calculation to offer preclearance on departure from Airport. Passengers and other people There is a need to inform passengers, and the general public, of the reason for the presence of uniformed personnel of another state at airport. Such an information initiative could be coordinated between the Government Offices of , and the . When it comes to passengers, and also those who need access to the preclearance area for other reasons, there is reason to also provide information about the powers of the preclearance officers and the rights that individuals have in Swedish territory. When it comes to employees and other staff employed by , the company has a particular responsibility for this. has an opportunity to charge all or part of the cost of the separate security screening, –65 per passenger, to the airlines that choose to make use of the opportunity of preclearance at Airport. The consequence of this proposal for the individual airline firstly depends on whether chooses to use this opportunity and secondly on whether the airline chooses to pass the cost on to the passenger entirely or in part by raising the ticket price. is unable to make any defi- nite assumptions on this matter. Based on previous experience, it can be assumed that airlines will pass on all or part of the cost of this separate security screening, –65 per passenger, to passengers. It is not possible for the Committee to judge how such an additional cost would affect . Entry into force and transitional rules (Chapter 20) The legislative amendments necessary to implement the Agreement and the Memorandum of Cooperation are to enter into force on the date determined by the Government. There is no need for any transitional provisions either in the new or in the amended legi- slation proposed by the Committee. lag (201x:xx) om amerikansk inresekontroll vid utresa från Härigenom föreskrivs följande. 1 kap. Allmänna bestämmelser 1 § Denna lag innehåller bestämmelser som genomför avtalet av mellan och förenta staters regering om amerikansk inresekontroll inom luftfarten och tillhörande samarbetsavtal på . Lagen är inte tillämplig på kommersiellt gods som transporteras av en resenär eller ett transportföretag. 2 § I denna lag förstås med huvudavtalet: avtalet av mellan och förenta staters regering om amerikansk inrese- kontroll inom luftfarten, samarbetsavtalet: samarbetsavtalet av mellan och förenta staters regering om civilt luftfartsskydd vid amerikansk inresekontroll på och till avtalet hörande bilagorna A och B, den amerikanska gränskontrollmyndigheten: US Customs and Border Protection, amerikansk inresekontroll: det förfarande genom vilket tjänste- män vid den amerikanska gränskontrollmyndigheten kontrollerar passagerare, gods, luftfartyg och förnödenheter för användning ombord på behöriga flygningar till , behöriga flygningar: för inresekontroll godkända kommersiella reguljära flygningar eller charterflygningar som avgår efter genom- förd inresekontroll från kontrollområdet, biografisk information: uppgifter om en persons namn, person- nummer eller födelsetid samt adress, biometrisk information: personuppgifter som rör en persons fy- siska, fysiologiska eller beteendemässiga kännetecken, som tagits fram genom särskild teknisk behandling och som möjliggör eller bekräftar unik identifiering av personen i fråga, gods: personliga tillhörigheter, bagage, varor inklusive djur och växter och varor av djur och växter, kontanter och andra kontanta medel, elektronisk utrustning, elektroniska medier samt handlingar, handling: framställning i skrift eller bild och upptagning som kan läsas, avlyssnas eller på annat sätt uppfattas bara med tekniskt hjälpmedel, inresekontrollant: en tjänsteman vid den amerikanska gräns- kontrollmyndigheten eller vid en annan behörig myndighet som har utsetts av att utföra amerikansk in- resekontroll i i den myndighetens ställe, kontrollområdet: det område enligt artikel I.14 i huvudavtalet på inom vilket den amerikanska gränskontroll- myndigheten bedriver sin kontrollverksamhet, och resenär: flygpassagerare eller besättningsmedlem som genomgår amerikansk inresekontroll för inresa eller tillträde till . 3 § Beslut om att kontrollområdet ska inrättas fattas av regeringen. Regeringen fastställer kontrollområdets gränser efter framställ- ning från Transportstyrelsen. Innan regeringen beslutar ska den amerikanska gränskontrollmyndigheten ges tillfälle att yttra sig. Regeringen eller den myndighet som regeringen bestämmer får besluta om mindre justeringar i kontrollområdet. 4 § Varje person, med undantag för svenska polismän och tull- tjänstemän, som kommer in i kontrollområdet ska an- mäla sig till en inresekontrollant och visa upp det gods som han eller hon har med sig. Resenärer ska därefter genomgå amerikansk inresekontroll. 5 § Behandling av personuppgifter vid verksamhet enligt huvud- avtalet ska ske enligt lag. Dessutom ska tillämp- liga bestämmelser i svensk och EU-rättslig lagstiftning följas. Personuppgifter som avser enskilda resenärer får inhämtas i kontrollsyfte endast om den som uppgifterna avser har samtyckt till detta. 1 § En inresekontrollant som ska genomföra en tjänsteuppgift ska följa det som föreskrivs i denna lag. Uppgiften ska genomföras på ett sätt som är försvarligt med hänsyn till åtgärdens syfte och övriga omständigheter. Om tvång måste tillgripas, ska detta ske endast i den form och den utsträckning som behövs för att det avsedda resultatet ska uppnås. En åtgärd som begränsar någon av de grundläggande fri- och rättigheter som avses i 2 kap. regeringsformen ska ha stöd i denna lag. Vid ett ingripande enligt första och andra stycket får sådana hjälpmedel vid våldsanvändning som anges i 3 § användas. Sådana hjälpmedel som avses i 3 § andra stycket får användas enbart i syfte att avvärja ett påbörjat eller överhängande brottsligt angrepp på person i kontrollområdet. 2 § En inresekontrollant får under sin tjänstgöring i kontroll- området bära uniform enligt tillämpliga amerikanska föreskrifter. Om en inresekontrollant rör sig utanför kontrollområdet ska han eller hon kunna styrka sin behörighet och identitet. 3 § En inresekontrollant får under sin tjänstgöring i kontroll- området vara utrustad med följande särskilda hjälpmedel vid vålds- användning: 3.pepparspray (OC-spray). Inresekontrollanten får också ha tillgång till pistol eller revolver. Regeringen eller den myndighet som regeringen bestämmer får besluta att inresekontrollanterna får utrustas även med andra hjälpmedel vid våldsanvändning än de som avses i första stycket.