WRITTEN QUESTION P-0792/00 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Data protection.
Date: 2000-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: complaint to the Commission, data protection, national implementing measure, regulation of telecommunications

C 46 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

1.
The Commission is aware of the situation which resulted in the non-granting of a second subsidy to
the Netherlands Film Festival. The facts are set out in detail in the decision delivered on 20 October 1998
by the European Ombudsman, which closed a detailed enquiry undertaken in response to a complaint
lodged on 23 January 1997.

The Commission has accepted the decision, including the critical remarks contained in the Ombuds-

2.
man(cid:146)s conclusion, which describes the procedure applied in this instance as (cid:145)bad governance(cid:146).

The Commission grants subsidies in accordance with precise legal rules relating inter alia to

3.
substance, form and deadlines. It cannot but comply with those rules.

(2001/C 46 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0792/00

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Data protection

A hearing was recently held in the European Parliament on data protection, at which (among other topics)
the communications interception project Echelon was discussed. It seems that this system is used world-
wide by the USA to intercept telephone, fax, mobile phone and e-mail communications; software may also
apparently have inbuilt keys which may be used as a secret back door through which a citizen may be
followed into his computer and his activities monitored.

The Directive on data protection in the telecommunications sector (European Parliament and Council
Directive 97/66/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection
of privacy in the telecommunications sector (1)) imposes obligations on service and network providers but
appears not to cover software.

1.

Has the Commission received any complaints about this matter?

2.
Is the Commission prepared to amend Directive 97/66/EC to plug the software loophole in the
interest of providing actual protection of citizens against the unwanted monitoring and interception of
computer contents and communications flows?

3.
Does the Commission consider that with increasingly comprehensive interception by the authorities
and with wide-ranging obligations for service providers to store their customers(cid:146) data the Member States
have struck a proper balance between the citizen(cid:146)s right to privacy and the interests of national security
and crime prevention?

Is the Commission,

in the context of its duty to ensure the proper transposition of European
4.
directives into national
law, examining the proportionality of measures taken by the Member States
pursuant to the exemptions permitted by the European data protection directives? What are its findings in
this connection?

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

1.

No.

Directive 95/46/EC (1) on the processing of personal data covers all processing of personal data
2.
irrespective of the hardware or software used. The working party of data protection commissioners
established under Article 29 of this Directive has addressed the problem of invisible and automatic
processing of personal data on the Internet performed by software and hardware. In its recommendation

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/45

the working party described the problem of privacy-invading features
1/99 of 23 February 1999,
embedded in software and hardware used for communications over the Internet. The working party called
on the software and hardware industry to develop privacy-compliant products in line with the data
protection rules of the general data protection Directive 95/46/EC and the telecommunications data
protection Directive 97/66/EC (2). One of the objectives of the 1999 review of the telecommunications
regulatory framework is to ensure a consistent, technology neutral application of existing rules and to
propose amendments where technological neutrality is not guaranteed. At present providers of public
telecommunications services and networks are under specific legal obligations to guarantee the security of
their networks, to ensure the confidentiality of communications and to delete traffic data.

Since the adoption of the telecommunications data protection Directive,
the services delivered over
telecommunications networks have evolved with the rise of the Internet. Regarding the software which is
necessary for these new telecommunications services, such as some software used for sending e-mails and
browsers used for surfing the Internet, compliance with data protection rules is not entirely satisfactory as
the working party of data protection commissioners has noted. Clearly, there is no technological neutrality
in a situation where the protection of the privacy of the user depends on whether certain functionalities
necessary for a telecommunications service are in the network or in the software. The Commission is
considering various possibilities to tackle this problem. Concrete proposals will be made when the
Commission adopts its legislative proposals for the new regulatory framework for electronic communica-
tions.

The Commission will pursue its obligation under the EC Treaty to monitor the transposition
3. and 4.
and effective implementation of directives by the Member States, bearing in mind the case law of the Court
of justice concerning the strict interpretation of the scope of exceptions to fundamental principles of law
and civil liberties. As part of this monitoring the Commission will examine the proportionality of the
legislative measures taken by Member States on the basis of Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC and
Article 14.1 of Directive 97/66/EC. These provisions allow Member States to adopt legislative measures
that restrict the application of some of the data protection principles established by the Directives in order
to safeguard the interests which are mentioned in Articles 13 and 14. However, such restrictions may only
be permitted under national law if they are necessary to safeguard the interests mentioned in Articles 13
and 14.

Until now, the process of transposition and implementation in the Member States of the data protection
directives has been slow. While the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings, it is currently
difficult to have a complete picture of the situation concerning the proportionality of the national
legislative measures that provide the basis for lawful interception of telecommunications. The Commission
will report further on the progress achieved in the next report on the implementation of the telecommu-
nications regulatory package.

(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with

regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995).

(2) Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of

personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ L 24, 30.1.1998).

(2001/C 46 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Transport of farm animals

Following the commitments given by Commissioner David Byrne at the meeting of 16 February of the
Eurogroup on Animal Welfare regarding enforcement of legislation concerning the transport of live farm