Mr President, the decision we are debating today is – or at least I hope it is – the last document we need to be able to set up a European authority which guarantees the practical protection of the European citizens’ privacy, including in respect of the Community institutions and bodies. Article 286 of the Treaty of Amsterdam stipulated that this would happen as of 1999. We are behind schedule and we must therefore avoid further delays. I am glad to say that European Parliament and Council Regulation No 45/2001 was adopted at first reading following intense combined endeavours, and it set out the principles and rules, in line with those laid down by Community directives for the Member States, for the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies. The regulation also set up an independent supervisory authority in the shape of the European Data Protection Supervisor, to be assisted by an Assistant Supervisor, who will oversee the implementation of the regulation. It established their roles and responsibilities – inquiries, advice and consultancy, regulation, settlement of disputes – and the procedures for their appointment. Only two points were not fixed by the regulation and are still to be settled: the remuneration to be paid to the Supervisor and his Assistant, and where the office will be located. On the matter of remuneration, since the full independence of the Supervisor's office is to be guaranteed in respect of his function of monitoring all the Community institutions and bodies, it appears quite correct to propose that the Supervisor should receive the same remuneration as the Ombudsman or a judge at the European Court of Justice. In the case of the Assistant Supervisor, who will be appointed by the same procedure and for the same period as the Supervisor, and will have the additional responsibility of deputising for the Supervisor should the latter be absent or prevented from carrying out his duties, it is proposed that the remuneration payable should be the same as that of the Registrar of the Court of Justice. As regards the location of the office, as the majority of the personal data processing services of the Community institutions and bodies are located in Brussels, it is proposed that the Supervisor's office should also be located there. After the debate in committee, a number of amendments were adopted which I do not endorse, such as those raising doubts about financial coverage, which have since become obsolete following the adoption of the budget. Other amendments, however, refer to the adoption of another major regulation, Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Since these amendments introduce recitals and not additional provisions, which would be unacceptable due to the lack of a legal base, I feel I can support them. The adoption during the course of the same year of these two major regulations confirms that, in Europe, the culture of personal data protection and the culture of the transparency of public activities are developing alongside each other rather than conflicting. Both are in opposition, however, to the authoritarian, bureaucratic culture which, on the one hand, fails to respect the privacy of individual citizens, and, on the other, has the gall to keep the administrative procedures and activities of public bodies confidential. I feel that the adoption of this decision will fill a significant gap in the system protecting the European citizens’ fundamental right to the protection of personal data, which is now enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Political group: PSE