WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/02 by Erika Mann (PSE) to the Commission. Mandatory data retention.
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Internet access provider, data processing, data protection, electronic mail, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, personal data, protection of privacy, public safety, regulation of telecommunications

C 52 E/150

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Greek authorities are responsible for examining the content and the accuracy of information contained
in all these studies. The Commission,
in the framework of its competencies, will take all necessary
measures to ensure that the above mentioned Community environmental legislation has been respected.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 52 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/02

by Erika Mann (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Mandatory data retention

According to the views of European Data Protection Commissioners, mandatory data retention as adopted
recently in the EP constitutes a clear change from the current practice whereby operators cooperate with
law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case and individual basis following an authorisation or warrant.

How does the European Commission evaluate the impact of general mandatory data retention on user
confidence in electronic communications?

Does the European Commission think that a Data Retention Regulation could provide the essential legal
framework? If so, when would the European Commission propose it?

How will the European Commission address the liability implications of data retention for communications
companies, should data be misused or in instances where data that is forwarded to LEAs turns out to be
wrong and leads to misinterpretation and even wrong judgments?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the behalf the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The new Directive 2002/58/EC on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
electronic communications sector was adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 12 July 2002 (1). The
Directive (Article 15.1) allows Member States to adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of some
rights and obligations it provides for insofar as such restriction constitutes measures that are necessary
within a democratic society to safeguard national security, public security, defence and for the prevention,
investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. These measures must be fully compatible
with the European Convention on Human Rights and other general principles of Community law. The
Directive mentions data retention measures as a possible example of such restricting measures. However,
this reference does not constitute a requirement for mandatory national traffic data retention measures.

If a Member State does propose regulatory measures on traffic data retention on the grounds mentioned in
Article 15.1 of the Directive, they will be examined by the Commission for conformance to the data
protection Directives and more generally to Community law. Of special concern in any such examination
will be the effects of these measures on electronic communications sector, including user confidence, and
on the functioning of the single market.

A possible Community legislative instrument to regulate mandatory traffic data retention could take two
forms, depending on its legal basis and objective. The effect would be different in the two cases. A third
pillar instrument (under Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union) with the objective of improving
police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters would probably tend to require all Member States to

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/151

impose certain traffic data retention requirements. A first pillar instrument (under the EC Treaty), with the
objective to ensure the proper functioning of the single market, would probably impose limits to traffic
data retention conditions that may be imposed on providers of electronic communications services and
networks especially in order to suppress any obstacle to the freedom of establishment

The Commission has no plans to propose either type of legislative instrument at this stage.

the importance of

The Commission recognises
liability of providers of electronic
communications services and networks for the transfer of incorrect data or for misuse of such data. In
their capacity of controllers of personal data the providers are responsible for any damage resulting from
any act incompatible with the data protection Directives including the quality and accuracy of the data or
the unlawful transfers to third parties. However, it is up to those Member States that find it necessary to
impose traffic data retention requirements on providers, to ensure that requirements will not lead to
liability for providers if they implement them lawfully.

the issue of

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

(2003/C 52 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Environmental education

The Environment Directorate-General will be aware of the work of the Foundation for Environmental
Education and of the fact that some of its programmes have,
in the past, received funding from the
Commission.

Does the Commission agree that environmental education has an important role to play in promoting the
EU’s environmental agenda?

Assuming this to be the case, which Directorate-General, DG Environment or DG Education and Culture,
takes the lead in processing and supporting applications for appropriate environmental education projects
in both Member States and the applicant countries?

If there is any uncertainty as to the appropriate Directorate-General in the case of a particular application,
who is responsible for resolving such conflict?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

In the sixth Environmental Action Programme of the Community, the Commission has indicated five
strategic approaches to meeting the environmental objectives for 2001-2010. These are all preventive
instruments aimed at protecting the environment rather
than to cure. One way to bring about
is by helping people to make environmentally friendly choices.
improvements to the environment
Individual citizens, as well as business, make daily decisions that directly or indirectly impact
the
environment. Better quality and easily accessible information on the environment and on practical matters
will help shape opinions and thus decisions. Environmental education and awareness raising activities will
be essential
the
responsibility of Member States and applicant countries.

to this process. The education systems and school curricula remains, however,