WRITTEN QUESTION E-3859/00 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission. Community-wide interception systems.
Date: 2000-12-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: communications systems, cross-frontier data flow, electronic document management, fact-finding mission, personal data, protection of privacy, tax system

C 187 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

The debate on the future of European cohesion policy after 2006, including the role of the European
Spatial Development Perspective,
is only beginning. The Commission published the Second Cohesion
Report on 31 January 2001 (2), which sets out a number of ideas and options in this regard, in order to
launch the debate. The Parliament will be fully involved in this debate. With regard to the outermost
regions, the Honourable Member will be aware that the Commission has presented proposals to the
in the fields of structural policies and rural development in order to take account of their
Council
particular circumstances (3).

(1) COM(2000) 700 final.
(2) COM(2001) 24.
(3) COM(2000) 732 final.

(2001/C 187 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3859/00

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Community-wide interception systems

In response to my Question E-2655/00 (1), the Commission stated that it was not aware of any attempt to
impose built-in interception systems on a Community-wide scale.

Articles 20 (real time collection of computer data) and 21 (interception of content data) of the draft
Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention do imply the introduction of built-in surveillance systems on
a pan-European and potentially (thanks to US involvement in the drafting process) global scale. The
implausibly broad definitions provided in Article 1 of the draft Convention make this threat even bigger.
In its non-paper of 2 October 2000, the European Commission itself raised numerous concerns regarding
the current draft Convention, indicating the seriousness of this proposal.

The Council of Europe(cid:146)s Document CJ-PD(2000)10, which discusses protection of personal data, says, in
relation to Directive 95/46/EC (2), that (cid:145)one could argue that a general mandatory retention of traffic data is
necessary for the investigation of criminal offences(cid:146). As the draft convention describes traffic data as (cid:145)any
computer data referring to a communication(cid:146), it is difficult to see how this could be imposed without
a comprehensive surveillance system.

Could the Commission indicate what it intends to do in order to ensure that the Convention does not lead
to built-in surveillance systems?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 143.
(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2001)

In the context of the ongoing negotiations for a Council of Europe convention on Cybercrime, the
Commission has submitted a non-paper in which various concerns are expressed regarding aspects of
protection of privacy within the emerging text, as the Honourable Member has noted.

The Commission will continue to participate actively in these negotiations, in which it has observer status,
and defend the acquis communautaire to the best of its abilities.