# CE2004084EN.01080601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/806 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/806

---

(2004/C 84 E/0901)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Yielding to the USA's pressure on airlines to supply unlimited quantities of data concerning passengers in advance of a possible agreement

Subject:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that — before any agreement has been concluded between the EU and the USA — the Dutch airline KLM is supplying all the data requested by the US Customs Service — including credit card numbers, e-mail addresses and dietary preferences — concerning passengers on flights landing at US airports, whereas other European airlines such as Alitalia, in compliance with national legislation, are not doing so? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that — before any agreement has been concluded between the EU and the USA — the Dutch airline KLM is supplying all the data requested by the US Customs Service — including credit card numbers, e-mail addresses and dietary preferences — concerning passengers on flights landing at US airports, whereas other European airlines such as Alitalia, in compliance with national legislation, are not doing so?

| 2. | Can the Commission confirm that this supply of data, which may contravene national and European standards for the protection of privacy, is taking place under the threat that passengers may be detained for hours after landing and that airlines may be fined USD 5 000 per passenger, be barred from entering US airspace or have their landing rights withdrawn? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission confirm that this supply of data, which may contravene national and European standards for the protection of privacy, is taking place under the threat that passengers may be detained for hours after landing and that airlines may be fined USD 5 000 per passenger, be barred from entering US airspace or have their landing rights withdrawn?

| 3. | Does the US Customs Service store these data for three and a half years? What US institutions other than the Customs Service have access to the data? For what purpose are the data passed to other parties and for how long are they stored by them? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the US Customs Service store these data for three and a half years? What US institutions other than the Customs Service have access to the data? For what purpose are the data passed to other parties and for how long are they stored by them?

| 4. | Does the Commission accept that the USA should subject European passengers to measures against terrorism or crime which do not apply to US citizens and which the USA also would not accept from other states? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission accept that the USA should subject European passengers to measures against terrorism or crime which do not apply to US citizens and which the USA also would not accept from other states?

| 5. | What would have to change in comparison with the current situation before an agreement with the USA on exchanges of personal data of air passengers might possibly be worthwhile? Does the Commission see any prospect that agreement on this may be possible within the next five years? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What would have to change in comparison with the current situation before an agreement with the USA on exchanges of personal data of air passengers might possibly be worthwhile? Does the Commission see any prospect that agreement on this may be possible within the next five years?

| 6. | Ought the European airline which complies least with the US requirements to be the yardstick for other European airlines? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Ought the European airline which complies least with the US requirements to be the yardstick for other European airlines?

| 7. | Under what circumstances will the Court of Justice of the European Communities ultimately decide on the lawfulness of compliance by EU-based operators with these US practices? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Under what circumstances will the Court of Justice of the European Communities ultimately decide on the lawfulness of compliance by EU-based operators with these US practices?

Source: TV Nederland 3, ‘Nova’, 12 February 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

(20 April 2004)

| 1. | Most EU-based airlines are complying with the United States requirement to provide Passenger Name Records (PNR) introduced by Congress in legislation adopted in November 2001 and applied since March 2003. This is as noted in the Joint Statement agreed between the Commission and the competent United States authorities on 18 February 2003. The Joint Statement marked the beginning of negotiations which have allowed the Commission to secure a number of significant improvements in the way the United States processes PNR data they receive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Most EU-based airlines are complying with the United States requirement to provide Passenger Name Records (PNR) introduced by Congress in legislation adopted in November 2001 and applied since March 2003. This is as noted in the Joint Statement agreed between the Commission and the competent United States authorities on 18 February 2003. The Joint Statement marked the beginning of negotiations which have allowed the Commission to secure a number of significant improvements in the way the United States processes PNR data they receive.

| 2. | The United States legislation concerned does indeed foresee the possibility of sanctions against airlines that do not comply, including those mentioned by the Honourable Member. The US authorities have not however, to the Commission's knowledge, applied any such sanctions since the negotiations referred to above began. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The United States legislation concerned does indeed foresee the possibility of sanctions against airlines that do not comply, including those mentioned by the Honourable Member. The US authorities have not however, to the Commission's knowledge, applied any such sanctions since the negotiations referred to above began.

| 3. | Present United States practice is as set out in the Joint Statement. Under the new Undertakings negotiated with the United States by the Commission which will come into effect once the proposed Adequacy Finding and international agreement are effective, the data retention period will be limited to three and a half years. Data may only be shared on a case by case basis with other authorities involved in combating terrorism and law enforcement for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism and related crimes, other serious crimes, including organized crime, that are transnational in nature, and flight from warrants or custody for these crimes. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Present United States practice is as set out in the Joint Statement. Under the new Undertakings negotiated with the United States by the Commission which will come into effect once the proposed Adequacy Finding and international agreement are effective, the data retention period will be limited to three and a half years. Data may only be shared on a case by case basis with other authorities involved in combating terrorism and law enforcement for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism and related crimes, other serious crimes, including organized crime, that are transnational in nature, and flight from warrants or custody for these crimes.

| 4. | No. The United States requirements apply to all airline passengers on flights to or from the United States, regardless of their nationality or place of residence. The United States authorities participating in the negotiations with the Commission have indicated that they see no obstacle or objection to the provision to authorities in the EU of PNR concerning flights to or from EU locations. |
| --- | --- |

4.

No. The United States requirements apply to all airline passengers on flights to or from the United States, regardless of their nationality or place of residence. The United States authorities participating in the negotiations with the Commission have indicated that they see no obstacle or objection to the provision to authorities in the EU of PNR concerning flights to or from EU locations.

| 5. | The Commission's position is set out fully in its Communication of 16 December 2003 (1). |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission's position is set out fully in its Communication of 16 December 2003 (1).

1

| 6. | The Commission's objective throughout the above-mentioned negotiations has been to create conditions that will allow airlines to comply with their legal obligations on both sides of the Atlantic. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission's objective throughout the above-mentioned negotiations has been to create conditions that will allow airlines to comply with their legal obligations on both sides of the Atlantic.

| 7. | As provided for in the EC Treaty, the European Court of Justice can be called upon to review the legality, ‘inter alia’, of acts of the Council or of the Commission, including therefore the legal instruments which the Commission is in the process of putting in place. Actions may be brought by a Member State, the Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the EC Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

7.

As provided for in the EC Treaty, the European Court of Justice can be called upon to review the legality, ‘inter alia’, of acts of the Council or of the Commission, including therefore the legal instruments which the Commission is in the process of putting in place. Actions may be brought by a Member State, the Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the EC Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 826 final.

1

---