WRITTEN QUESTION E-3802/00 by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Council. Transposal of Directive 97/66/EC.
Date: 2000-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: national implementing measure, protection of communications

C 174 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

(2001/C 174 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3798/00

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Limits to the protection of privacy and legal tapping

Under Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC (1) and Article 14 of Directive 97/66/EC (2), both relating to the
protection of privacy and the processing of personal data, and Article 15 of proposal for a directive
COM(2000) 385, Member States may impose limits on the general principle of respect for privacy where
such measures are required in order to safeguard national security, defence, public security, or the
prevention,
investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offences or unauthorised use of tele-
communications or electronic communication systems.

The Working Party set up by Directive 95/46/EC has drawn up recommendation 2/99 on respect for
privacy where telecommunications tapping is concerned,
in which it specifies the requirements that
national laws must meet in order to ensure that tapping carried out by State bodies is consistent with
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and Article 8 of the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In the light of the foregoing, can the Council say:

(cid:129) how it will give effect to the Working Party(cid:146)s recommendation 2/99;

(cid:129) whether it has ascertained that the national laws authorising tapping conform to the requirements laid

down in that recommendation;

(cid:129) whether it believes that the above-mentioned requirements could be incorporated into Directive 95/

46/EC when the latter is revised;

(cid:129) whether it does not consider, given that the Union is called upon to respect human rights and
fundamental freedoms under Articles 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty, that the European institutions should
do more to regulate legal tapping in the Union, for instance by removing or clarifying the exemptions
granted to Member States as regards legal tapping?

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.

(2001/C 174 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3802/00

by Maurizio Turco (TDI) to the Council

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Transposal of Directive 97/66/EC

Article 15 of Directive 97/66/EC (1) 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
stipulates that: (cid:145)Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary for them to comply with this Directive not later than 24 October 1998. By way of derogation
from the first subparagraph, Member States shall bring into force the laws regulations and administrative
provisions necessary for them to comply with Article 5 of this Directive not later than 24 October 2000(cid:146).

Will the Council say:

(cid:129) why provision was made for a derogation in respect of Article 5?

(cid:129) what does it intend to do about the nine countries which have not yet taken any measures? What

procedures will it initiate and when?

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/147

(cid:129) has it checked whether the directive has been correctly transposed in the other countries?

(cid:129) in the light of the failure of a majority of the Member States to transpose Directive 97/66/EC and
given that the amendment of Directive 95/46/EC (2) is pending, is it not premature to proceed with
amending this legislation via the proposal for a directive COM(2000) 385?

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3798/00 and E-3802/00

(8 March 2001)

Directive 97/66/EC was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 15 December 1997
following a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. The provision referred to in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
question was not contained in the common position adopted earlier by the Council on 12 September
1996.

This provision is one of the elements of the compromise reached on the matter of confidentiality of
communications, which was one of the issues submitted to the Conciliation Committee. In order to make
one of the European Parliament(cid:146)s amendments, which the Council was prepared to accept, compatible with
the remainder of the text of the Directive, it proved necessary to add an explicit reference to recordings
legally authorised by certain Member States in the course of limited business practice for the purpose of
the
providing evidence of a commercial
compromise on this point, provision had consequently to be made for a further period to enable some
Member States to include this possibility in their national legislation.

transaction or communication (Article 5(2)). As part of

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s other questions fall within the scope of
Commission by the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof.

the powers attributed to the

(2001/C 174 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3806/00

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Safeguarding employees(cid:146) rights in the event of transfers of undertakings

Is it possible that Directive 77/187/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 98/50/EC (2), on safeguarding
employees(cid:146) rights in the event of transfers of undertakings could apply in the case that, following a tender
procedure, there was a change of contractor with respect to a contract for the provision of a crŁche, on
the assumption that the crŁche in question fulfilled the criteria for it to be considered an economic entity
retaining its own identity?

If it were the case that the Directive were deemed to apply; how would its application be made compatible
with the principles of non-discrimination in public procurement procedures set out in Directive 92/50/
EEC (3) on public service contracts?

If it were the case that the Directive was applicable but was not in fact applied, what redress would
employees of the transferor have, and against which party?

(1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 88.
(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.