WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Internet surveillance by American secret services.
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Internet, United States, data protection, espionage, industrial espionage, personal data, protection of privacy, secret service

C 225 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Sweden is implementing this decision by the so-called Norrland subsidy, which is a continuation of the aid
regime in force before accession. Under this regime aid is granted per replaced laying hen. A national
limitation is set so that the aid is granted only from 1,000 replaced hens per year onwards.

The Commission decision defines the maximum aid rates and the maximum allowed production amounts,
which are based on the reference period. When the national
implementation is in line with the
Commission decision, the only possible reduction requirement comes in the case where the total amount
of production is exceeded. Then Article 4 of the decision requires that Sweden shall reduce the aid granted
proportionally in the following year.

The fundamental principle of the Article 142 is to maintain the traditional agricultural activity in northern
regions and not to increase the production with the help of the aid.

(1) OJ L 230, 21.8.1997.

(2000/C 225 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Internet surveillance by American secret services

Following on from Echelon, the Anglo-American system for monitoring communications between citizens,
the NSA (National Security Agency) and the CIA, under the (cid:145)United States National Plan for Information
System Protection(cid:146) drawn up by the National Security Council, are now able to monitor all information
intruder detection
and communication that takes place worldwide on the Internet, through a (cid:145)federal
network(cid:146) (Fidnet).

What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect the privacy of Union citizens and
businesses against this new attack on individual and commercial freedom?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

On 24 October 1995 the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1). On
15 December 1997 the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 97/66/EC concerning the processing
of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (2). The deadline for
implementing these Directives expired on 24 October 1998. Both Directives aim to ensure the rights and
freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, and in particular their right to
privacy.

These directives are obviously relevant to the matters raised in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question.
The scope of the Directives is naturally limited to the issues which come within the framework of the EC
Treaty and both Directives allow exemptions in order to safeguard particular interests such as public
security or the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. Any citizen who
feels that his or her privacy is prejudiced can either complain to the national supervisory data protection
authorities or make submissions to a national court.

The question of alleged interception for national security reasons falls outside the competence of the
Commission as defined by the EC Treaty. In this respect, the Honourable Member is referred to the
answers provided by the Commission to written question E-1039/98 by Mrs Van Dijk (3), E-1040/98 by
Mrs Van Dijk (4), E-1306/98 by Mrs Muscardini and others (5), E-1429 by Mrs Raschhofer (6), E-1776/98 by
Mr Manisco (7), E-1987/98 by Mr Kaklamanis (8), H-1067/98 by Mrs McKenna during question time at

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/13

Parliament(cid:146)s December 1998 part-session (9), H-1237/98 by Mr Schorling during question time at
Parliament(cid:146)s January 1999 part-session (10) and H-0092/99 by Mr Theonas during question time at
Parliament(cid:146)s February 1999 part-session (11).

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.
(3) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998.
(4) OJ C 354, 24.11.1998.
(5) OJ C 402, 6.1.1998.
(6) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.
(7) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.
(8) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.
(9) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1998).
(10) Debates of the European Parliament (January 1999).
(11) Debates of the European Parliament (February 1999).

(2000/C 225 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1720/99

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Minimum standards for crash helmets for high-speed watercraft

In recent months, the British media has reported a number of accidents involving high speed watercraft,
especially jet skis. In some cases, the injuries sustained may have been less severe had the occupant or
occupants been wearing suitable crash helmets.

Accidents involving high-speed watercraft can exert entirely different stresses on the head and neck than
those involving other slower craft. Crash helmets designed for canoes and white-water sports are therefore
not only unsuitable but possibly dangerous.

No British standards nor, as far as I am aware, international standards yet exist for crash helmets for high
speed watercraft.

Will the Commission therefore investigate the feasibility of setting such standards at EU level to help
prevent such unnecessary injury recurring?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1999)

Helmets intended for use in high-speed watercraft are covered by the (cid:145)new approach(cid:146) directive on personal
protective equipment (PPE), Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (1).
(cid:145)New approach(cid:146) principles
require a correct application of the essential health and safety requirements applicable to a product but
give the manufacturer a choice of either directly meeting the essential health and safety requirements or
relevant harmonised standards.

The essential health and safety requirements are set out in Annex II, which clearly states at its point 1 that
(cid:145)PPE must provide adequate protection against all risks encountered(cid:146). Furthermore, PPE must be so designed
and manufactured that in the foreseeable conditions of use for which it is intended the user can perform
the risk-related activity normally whilst enjoying protection at the highest possible level. Manufacturers
must provide the users with all relevant information on use and maintenance.

Compliance with the PPE Directive(cid:146)s relevant health and safety requirements is provided through
conformity assessment procedures which have been set at a level proportionate to the potential risks
against which protection is provided. For the helmets in question, a manufacturer is under a legal
obligation to obtain a Community-type certification from a notified body designated by a Member State.
The notified body checks the conformity of the type with the essential health and safety requirements