WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Implementation of the EU data protection directive.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, EU Member State, application of EU law, data protection, personal data

C 147 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

The Commission is of the opinion that when Community legislation already lays down a criterion for
salmonella in meat preparations, there is no need to extend the additional salmonella guarantees to these
products. Community legislation on food hygiene is currently under review and in that framework the
Commission is in the process of revising microbiological criteria. In this context improved sampling rules
and limits may be considered for meat preparations in order to tighten up the controls.

(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

(2002/C 147 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3710/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the EU data protection directive

(17 January 2002)

Have all Member States now ratified the data protection directive? If not, what does the Commission
intend to do to ensure that the directive comes into force throughout the Union as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

To date, all Member States but two (Ireland and Luxembourg) have informed the Commission that they
have adopted legislative or administratives measures to comply with 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 on the free movement of such data (1).

Following the entry into force of the Directive on 15 October 1998, the Commission had started formal
infringement procedures against the nine Member States that had failed to notify transposition of the
Directive. These procedures have been dropped for those Member States that have communicated in the
meantime the adoption of implementation measures. In the case of Irleland, the infringement procedure
follows its course, and in the case of Luxembourg, the Commission action has led to this Member State
being condemned by the Court of Justice in ruling C-450/00.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2002/C 147 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3712/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Interpretation of ‘journalistic purposes’ in the EU data protection directive

The EU data protection directive has caused a lot of legal headaches in Sweden. On 13 June 2001, it was
announced that the Supreme Court considered the home page of a defendant (Börje Ramsbro) to be of a
journalistic nature and hence not to be covered by the Swedish Personal Data Protection Act. Its judgment
therefore ran counter to earlier judgments delivered by the Stockholm District Court and the Svea Court of
Appeal, both of which took the view that data protection legislation had been infringed. The Data
Protection Inspectorate and the Prosecutor-General’s Office were also rebuffed for having misinterpreted
the Personal Data Protection Act. After two years of litigation, the Supreme Court cleared Börje Ramsbro,