WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/02 by Erika Mann (PSE) to the Council. Mandatory data retention.
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: data processing, data protection, data transmission, electronic mail, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, personal data, public safety

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/153

formation of high levels of acrylamide in food. When sufficient scientific understanding is reached it will
be possible to consider whether limits should be set
for acrylamide in food. The Commission is
considering possible support for the identified long-term research needs in its 6th Framework Programme
for Research and Technological Development. The need to set limits will be kept under review in the light
of the latest scientific evidence.

(2003/C 92 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/02

by Erika Mann (PSE) to the Council

(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.

Could the Council clarify how this issue will, in future, be dealt with under the first and third pillars, and
how it will ensure that any EU initiative in the area of data retention is carried out in a coordinated and
transparent way involving full consultation of all
interested parties (law enforcement agencies, data
protection officials, users, and industry), services (DGs JHA, InfSo, Internal Market, SanCo) and Parliament?

How will the Council address the issue of the cost of keeping the data secure against external and internal
misuse?

How will the Council 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?

How will the Council ensure that compliance costs are not prohibitive to new market entrants and small
ISPs?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

On 12 July 2002 the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the
processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. This
Directive will
replace Directive 97/66/EC, which has been adapted to market and technological
developments.

As far as the retention of data is concerned, the aspect to which the Honourable Member refers, the new
Directive makes no substantive changes to the current provisions. Like Directive 97/66/EC, it lays down
the principle (Article 6) that traffic data must be erased when it is no longer needed for the purpose of the
transmission of a communication; at the same time, it provides for a number of exceptions. One of these
is that Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of certain rights and obligations
under the Directive, when such restriction constitutes a necessary, appropriate and proportionate measure
within a democratic society to safeguard national security, defence, public security, and the prevention,
investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. The main changes introduced here by
Directive 2002/58/EC (Article 15) consist in specifying, firstly, that the retention of traffic data for a limited
period is one of the measures that may be taken, and, secondly, that all restrictive measures must be in
accordance with the general principles of Community law. It should also be noted that recital 11 of the
Directive sets out the strict conditions with which those measures must comply. The provisions do not
therefore impose an obligation to retain traffic data.

C 92 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

It will the Commission’s task, in accordance with the Treaty, to ensure that these provisions are applied.

The Council has no knowledge of any new legislative initiatives under consideration in this area.

(2003/C 92 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2311/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: EU measures against the ‘EU-Student Vote’ project for the unauthorised use of the EU logo

On the website of the association which organised the online elections of the so-called European Student
Council (cid:1) www.eusv.org (cid:1) the European Union is still included amongst the partners of the initiative, as
indicated by the official flag and a link to the website www.europa.eu.int.

The President of the Commission has declared that the Commission has neither financed nor supported
this initiative in any way and that the above-mentioned Council will not be considered representative of
European students.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to protect itself from the casual and unauthorised use
of the symbols and name of the Union?

Answer given by Mr. Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The criteria agreed upon between the Council of Europe and the Commission provide that the European
emblem may be used by third parties only if it is not:

(cid:1) likely to create confusion between the user and the Union or the Council of Europe;

(cid:1) linked to aims or activities incompatible with the principles and objectives of the Union or the

Council of Europe.

With regard to these criteria the Commission would not have any objection to the use of European
emblem to make a link to the Europa Server
(http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/emblem/graphics/
graphics_en.htm).

The Commission, however, would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the
permission to use the European emblem implies no right of exclusive use.
It does not permit the
appropriation of the emblem, or of any similar trade mark of logo, whether by registration or by any other
means.

(2003/C 92 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2320/02

by Feleknas Uca (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Accreditation of journalists at the Seville European Council

A journalist working for the Özgür Politika newspaper applied for accreditation in connection with the
Seville European Council but the Spanish authorities rejected his application without giving any reasons
for their decision. The journalist
in question has on several occasions in the past been granted
accreditation in connection with EU summits.

Why was his application rejected without reason?