WRITTEN QUESTION P-0830/00 by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission. Interception of international telecommunications.
Date: 2000-03-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, United States, protection of communications

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/53

subsidies given to farmers whose field margins are over two metres. If farmers in the south-west do not
wish to lose an average of £ 969 per year, they will have to plough right up to, and possibly cut back,
their hedges. This will damage wildlife and remove land vital for preventing soil erosion on steep fields. It
will run counter to the environmental goals adopted by the EU.

The UK has asked the Commission to increase the (cid:145)set-aside(cid:146) margin to three metres for the UK. In the
interests of promoting environmental conservation, will the Commission agree to rethink its approach, at
least in the case of farmers who have traditionally maintained wide field margins?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The situation to which the Honourable Member refers is not new. The recommendations concerning the
maximum width of field borders have existed since 1994 and have since been applied throughout the
Community.

The Commission is of the opinion that the question of whether and to what extent areas planted with
hedgerows can be considered as part of agricultural parcels eligible for arable areas support, needs to be
clarified by means of a regulation. Obviously, such an amendment to Community legislation will not enter
into force sufficiently early to apply to support for the 2000 harvest. Therefore,
for this year, the
Commission has suggested to the authorities of United Kingdom, that the practice concerning the rules
on area measurement employed in previous years be maintained, as laid down in paragraph 2 of the
Commission Working Document VI/8388/94 a copy of which is sent direct to the Honourable Member
and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(2001/C 46 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0830/00

by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Interception of international telecommunications

the hearing on (cid:145)Data protection in the European Union(cid:146) held at

At
the European Parliament on
22/23 February 2000, Duncan Campbell, the STOA representative, reported on the status quo of the
Echelon international electronic eavesdropping system, revealing that information of economic importance
was being intercepted by Echelon in Europe and that this harmed the European economy.

John Mogg, Director-General at the European Commission, and Martin Bangemann, Member of the
European Commission, denied this, maintaining that Echelon was only (cid:145)press rumours(cid:146), but their claims
were clearly refuted by the statements of high officials such as Martin Brady, Director of the Australian
Secret Service(cid:146)s Defence Signal Directorate.

There is a great deal of evidence that the Council and the Commission were very well aware of this
eavesdropping system but took no action and deliberately did not inform the European Parliament.

Regardless of all this, the Council and Commission went so far as to change the European legislation to
make it more favourable to the USA by following the main lines of an American statute passed in 1994
(CALEA) and taking into account that country(cid:146)s wishes in the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 (1) on
the lawful interception of telecommunications.

C 46 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

1. Which Commission departments were aware of the interception of telecommunications in Europe
and at what point in time, and what action was taken to counter it?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect electronic communications in Europe
in future from eavesdropping and to guarantee the protection of personal and economic data?

3. Was the Commission aware that the Enfopol documents originated at meetings of the International
Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar chaired by the USA and why was Enfopol 90 never
discussed but only dealt with by a written procedure?

(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

Neither the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market nor the Director-General
representing the Commission at the Parliamentary hearing of 12 and 13 February 2000 adopted a position
on the existence of Echelon at that hearing. The Commission was informed about Echelon in the same way
and at the same time as the Parliament through the study drawn up for the Parliament(cid:146)s STOA panel
in January 1998.

Article 5 of Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications
sector (1) obliges the Member States to prohibit all forms of interception or surveillance of communications
carried out by means of a public telecommunications network and publicly available telecommunications
services. Article 14.1 of this same Directive allows the Member States to adopt legislative measures to
restrict the scope of some of the principles for data protection set out in this text, when such restriction
constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard national security, defence, public security, and the prosecution
of criminal offences. In accordance with Court of Justice case law concerning the strict interpretation of
the field of application of exceptions to fundamental legal principles and civil liberties, the Commission
will fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty to monitor the transposition and effective implementation of
Directives in the Member States. As one of its monitoring duties, the Commission will examine in
particular the proportionality of the legislation adopted on the basis of Article 14.1 of Directive 97/66/EC.

In addition, (cid:145)privacy enhancing technologies(cid:146) can give individuals greater control over the personal data
concerning them and enhance the integrity of such networked data. The Commission has taken action to
raise awareness of these technological developments (e.g. a workshop on privacy enhancing technologies).
Finally, the information society technologies programme (IST, which is part of the 5th Framework
Programme for Research and Technological Development) contains an action line referring to (cid:145)technology
building blocks for trust and security(cid:146) which focuses on technologies empowering users to consciously and
effectively manage and negotiate their personal rights (IST (cid:129) II.4.1).

The Commission would like to point out that the abbreviation Enfopol
is simply the administrative
reference for the working documents produced by the working party on police cooperation. This working
party carries out preparatory work for the Article 36 Committee, the Coreper and the Council in fields
concerning cooperation between police forces in the Member States. The Enfopol references are simply an
aid to circulating the meeting documents. These documents in no way (cid:145)originate at meetings of the
International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar(cid:146), given that this forum for telecommunica-
tions experts is not a Community institution.

With regard to Enfopol 90, this is a 1995 Council Resolution on the lawful interception of telecommu-
nications (2), which drew up a list of requirements in this field expressed by law enforcement agencies, in
order to reach a definition of common technical standards for intercepting communications. This
resolution, which is not binding, was indeed adopted by a written procedure on 17 January 1995 and
published in the Official Journal (2). The Commission, which does not take part in such votes, has no
information as to why the written procedure was chosen.

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.
(2) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996.