WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/02 by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission. Checking the identity of airline passengers.
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, France, Schengen Agreement, air transport, inland transport, police checks, public safety

C 222 E/12

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

3. A licensing requirement applies in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal

and Spain.

Although no registration or licensing requirement is currently in force in Greece or Ireland, these
countries have announced legislative plans in this area.

4. A banking licence for the conduct of money transmission business is required in France and Germany.

(1) Text available at www.fatf-gafi.org.

(2003/C 222 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Pump guns

Reports of incidents of murder, manslaughter and accidents involving the use of pump guns have,
unfortunately, become an everyday occurrence.

Does the Council not consider that it would be appropriate to ban pump guns, as they are used neither by
the security forces nor by members of shooting clubs or huntsmen?

Does the Council share the concern felt by the author of this question, and does it intend to take action
itself and exert its influence with the Member States? How do matters stand in this area?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council certainly shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the risks
associated with misuse of pump guns. However, it is not for the Council to initiate any actions by itself
with a view to a possible ban of pump guns as the Honourable Member suggests. It is the competence of
the Member States themselves to take any action they deem appropriate to restrict or forbid the use of
pump guns.

(2003/C 222 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Checking the identity of airline passengers

Airline passengers on French domestic routes are subject to repeated identity checks. Consequently,
passengers travelling from Paris to Lyons, for example, are subject to controls both at check-in and on
boarding the aircraft, whereas the identity of passengers travelling from Brussels, Berlin or Madrid is not
checked either on departure or on arrival.

Are these checks imposed by the airlines for tariff-related purposes, or are they a security requirement
imposed by the French authorities? In either event, does the Commission consider that they are compatible
with European rules?

If exceptions to the Schengen rules are being made for security reasons, how does the Commission explain
the fact that, paradoxically, these security requirements are stricter on domestic than on international
routes?

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/13

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2002)

As the flights concerned are within a Member State, the provisions of the Schengen acquis, which govern
the crossing of internal borders between Member States, are not applicable.

(2003/C 222 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2681/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Subject: Conflict between the requirement to retain telecommunications traffic data and protection of
privacy pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms

1.
Is the Commission aware of the view expressed by the Netherlands body for the protection of
personal data, the ‘College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens’ (CBP), formerly known as the ‘Registratiekamer’,
in the Netherlands newspaper Staatscourant of 5 September 2002 that the imposition of a general
requirement to retain telecommunications traffic data for a year or more, which was made possible by
Directive No 2002/58/EC (1) concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
the electronic communications sector (cid:1) adopted following its second reading by Parliament at the end of
May (cid:1) is inadmissible?

2.
Has it also noted the reference by the CBP to the view repeatedly voiced by guardians of privacy in
Europe that the requirement to retain traffic data for a year or more infringes the right to respect for
privacy? What is the Commission’s view?

3.
Has it also noted the CBP’s view that a general requirement to retain traffic data contravenes the
obligation to respect privacy as laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)?

4.
Can it confirm that this requirement to retain traffic data contravenes the said article of the ECHR, all
the more so as it does not depend on a prior accusation or a particular court order to conduct an
investigation?

5.
Can the Commission confirm that, through Articles 52(3) and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union proclaimed in December 2000 in Nice, the European Union established a
link with the ECHR adopted on 4 November 1950 under the responsibility of the Council of Europe and
last amended on 11 May 1994, which means that EU legislation should be in accordance with this
Convention?

6. What implications should the incompatibility with human rights previously laid down, including the
protection of privacy, have for the plans currently being developed by the Council for a requirement for
the general storing of traffic data in data communications?

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2002)

1.
The Commission is closely involved in the ongoing discussion about the compatibility of general
traffic data retention requirements with the European Convention on Human Rights and the European
Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this context, the Commission is aware of positions taken by
national data protection authorities.