WRITTEN QUESTION P-2955/02 by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Data retention.
Date: 2002-10-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European convention, computer crime, data processing, disclosure of information, judicial cooperation, protection of privacy

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/67

Reply

(3 March 2003)

1.
It should be pointed out to the Honourable Member that, at EU level, as indicated in particular in the
immigration and trafficking of human beings in the European
comprehensive plan to combat illegal
Union, adopted by the Council on 28 February 2002 and published in the Official Journal (1), a feasibility
study is being carried out with a view to developing a European system for exchanging information on
asylum, migration and countries of origin. On the basis of that study’s findings, the Commission should
shortly be presenting the Council with proposals for the establishment and implementation of such a
system. Mention should also be made of regional cooperation under the JHA regional programme for the
Mediterranean (approved at
the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Valencia in April 2002) and
cooperation between Member States under the Spanish, Greek, Italian and United Kingdom project for
maritime border control in the Mediterranean, funded from the ARGO programme, budget heading B7-667
and MEDA, as well as by Member States.

2.
As regards cooperation with Mediterranean countries, it should be noted that, under the MEDA 2002
regional financing plan shortly to be submitted to the Council, the Commission intends to make funding
available for the adoption and implementation of, among other measures, various initiatives relating to
immigration. Managing migration flows and combating illegal
immigration and trafficking in human
beings should be among the aims of measures eligible for funding under the plan.

(1) OJ C 142, 14.6.2002, p. 23 (point 46).

(2003/C 155 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2955/02

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 October 2002)

Subject: Data retention

Data preservation and not data retention is the principle on which protection of potential evidence is
based in the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention. This has been supported by all EU Member States
and, among others, the USA and Japan. Does the Commission believe that it is wise to go beyond what is
in the Convention even before it has entered into force?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission believes that
is wise to go beyond the
preservation regime of stored traffic data adopted in the Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-crime
even before it has entered into force.

it

The Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-crime establishes specific requirements for international co-
operation in the fight against cyber crime. While this Convention requires obligations for preservation of
stored traffic data, it leaves the contracting parties free to adopt other measures necessary in the fight
against crime.

Under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, it is up to each Member State adopting
traffic data retention measures to provide evidence that the public interest objective pursued cannot be
achieved through less privacy invasive measures such as, for instance, data preservation.

The Commission is fully engaged in ensuring compatibility between data protection and privacy rights and
law enforcement needs. It considers that a consistent approach in all Member States on traffic data
retention would be highly desirable, to meet the objectives of both proportionality and effectiveness and to
avoid the situation where both law enforcement and the Internet community would have to deal with a
patchwork of diverse technical and legal environments.

C 155 E/68

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

traffic data retention, has been discussed in the
The issue addressed by the Honourable Member,
Commission Communication on Cyber-crime (1). In its Communication, the Commission pointed out that
any solution on this complex issue should be well founded, proportionate and achieve a fair balance
between the different interests and fundamental human rights at stake. Only an approach that brings
together the expertise and capacities of government, industry, data protection supervisory authorities and
other interested parties as users will succeed in meeting such goals. Since then, the Commission has
launched a large debate on this issue within the framework of the Union Forum on Cyber-crime, which
has involved the Council, the Parliament and various other stakeholders. These discussions have not yet
been completed and the Commission therefore considers premature to draw any conclusions on whether
there is a need for any legislative action at Union level.

(1) COM(2000) 890 final.

(2003/C 155 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2960/02

by André Brie (GUE/NGL)
and Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Minefields on the (eastern) border between Greece and Turkey

Referring to an article in the ‘Athens News’ (30.8.2002) according to which an illegal immigrant was killed
and two others injured after straying into a minefield near Greece’s northeastern border with Turkey, we
would like to draw the attention of the Council to this persistent problem. Although there has been a
considerable number of mine victims (especially immigrants) over the last couple of years, the most recent
Landmine Monitor Report 2002 (http://www.icbl.org/) maintains that ‘there appears to be no compre-
hensive report on the mine problem in Greece’.

Since the border between Greece and Turkey is also an external border of the EU, we ask the Council:

(cid:1) Is it aware of this problem?

(cid:1) What is its position towards this anachronistic and inhuman border regime?

(cid:1) How does it interpret this situation in the light of Parliament’s resolution on anti-personnel landmines
(B5-0802/2000 (1)) in which Parliament ‘asks the EU to commit itself … to work towards the total
elimination of anti-personnel landmines’?

(cid:1) What political, financial or other measures have been (or will be) taken to support Greece in the

necessary demining activities?

(1) OJ C 197, 12.7.2001, p. 193.

Reply

(20 February 2003)

1.
The Council is fully aware of the problem posed by the existing minefields, a legacy of past conflicts,
along the Greek-Turkish border, where exploding mines regularly claim victims, in particular among illegal
immigrants.

2.
The Council is generally committed to the goal of total elimination of landmines. This is reflected in
in particular, the CFSP Joint Action of 1997 on anti-personnel
a number of legislative acts such as,
landmines and the two Regulations of 2001 on anti-landmine action in developing countries and in third
countries other than developing countries. The latter are a direct response to the Convention on the
prohibition of
the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their
destruction (Ottawa Convention or Mine Ban Treaty), while the CFSP Joint Action i.a. allows for specific
actions and contributions of the EU in the field of mine clearance and relief for victims.