WRITTEN QUESTION E-3081/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Circumvention of US legislation by a data retention requirement for electronic communications in the EU.
Date: 2002-10-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, cooperation policy, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, electronic mail, fight against crime, personal data, protection of privacy, terrorism

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/87

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

The Commission does not agree that there was a significant increase in prices linked to the introduction of
the euro. According to an analysis carried out by Eurostat and published in July 2002, consumer prices in
the euro zone, as measured by the Harmonised Consumer Price Index (HCPI), rose by 1,4 % between the
last six months of 2001 and the first six months of 2002. Of this increase 1,2 % is attributable to historical
inflation trends and specific factors not directly linked to the introduction of the euro (weather conditions,
indirect taxes, etc.). The inflationary impact of the introduction of euro notes and coins is thus limited (not
more than 0,2 %). In most Member States, similar estimates suggesting generally limited effects have been
made by national statistical
institutes and central banks. Nevertheless, abnormal price rises have been
observed in some sectors (restaurants and cafés, health services, small traders, etc.). These increases,
combined with a tendency to round prices up on certain everyday consumer products, might have
contributed to the public’s perception of a higher inflationary effect than that indicated by official indices
for all consumer goods and services. Overall, inflation has been falling since the start of 2002.

The detailed analysis of the trends of prices by subsector of activity for the first six months of the year, to
which Honourable Members can refer, was published by Eurostat on 17 July 2002 (News Release No 84/
2002).

The Commission has no intention of proposing further harmonisation of the rules on prices beyond the
existing provisions on the indication of prices and on the rounding of prices in connection with the
introduction of the euro, the application of which is a matter for the Member States.

(2003/C 155 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3081/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Circumvention of US legislation by a data retention requirement for electronic communications in

the EU

1.
Is it correct that on 16 October 2001 the President of the Commission received a report from the US
President seizing upon an offer made by the President-in-Office of the Council on 27 September 2000 to
improve cooperation in combating terrorism, to suggest that the EU should take measures in the area of
data retention, in other words the storing of electronic communications data so as to be able to check
whether they are being used for criminal or terrorist purposes or to track down the place of residence of
the sender in subsequent months or years?

2.
Does the Commission have the impression that this American request influenced the view taken by
the Council on 28 January 2002 that the ban on data retention for purposes other than billing should be
deleted from the draft Directive on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
electronic communications sector (C5-0028/2002), as a result of which the Council
is free to make
proposals on data retention for a period of 12 to 24 months?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that President Bush is asking the European Commission and the
Council to impose requirements on European firms which could not be imposed in the United States
under current US legislation? What is the Commission’s view of this contradiction?

4.
Is it possible that, through the exchange of data with Europe, US judicial bodies are trying to obtain
traffic data which could not be obtained under US legislation? Does the Commission find it acceptable
that, through this circuitous European route, data can be gathered and stored for the benefit of a State
which is not authorised to collect such data itself?

5.
Does the Commission share the concern expressed by civil rights organisations in the United States
and Europe who see these proposals as a breach of civil rights and who, in a letter to the Presidency, have
expressed the following views on Bush’s request for the introduction of data retention: ‘While we support

C 155 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

the President’s efforts to take appropriate steps to reduce the risk of terrorism and to protect public safety,
we do not believe that this proposal is appropriate or necessary’?

6. What role will these objections play in the final shape of any framework directive on data retention?
What is the current situation regarding this matter?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2002)

1.
Yes, the Commission has received from President Bush a letter dated 15 October 2001 with several
proposals on counter-terrorism cooperation, including on the subject of data retention in the context of
the review of the corresponding legislation.

2.
In line with the objective of a high level of protection of personal data within the Community, the
Commission has taken the view, throughout the co-decision procedure on Directive 2002/58/EC on
privacy and electronic communications (1), that the general obligation to erase traffic data when they are
no longer needed for the provision of the communication service or for billing purposes, must be
maintained. This is without prejudice to possibilities to process traffic data on the basis of the individual’s
consent which have been extended in the new Directive. At the same time the existing margin for Member
States to restrict rights and obligations under the Directive where this is notably necessary for national
security or for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences also remains in
place, though subject to the conditions now explicitly recalled in the same Directive, including a test of
necessity, appropriateness and proportionality in a democratic society. On request of the Council, the
Commission and the Parliament have accepted that retention of data for a limited period be mentioned as
one example of such possible measures. This reference to the retention of data is, however, neither a
requirement to impose such retention, nor an authorisation for Member States that would wish to
introduce such measures. The Commission is not in a position to assess the influence of the American
request on the position of the Council, and would refer the Honourable Member to the Council.

3. Whether the American legal system leads to a more restricted availability of traffic data in the United
States is not clear. While the United States do not appear to include a general obligation to retain traffic
data for law enforcement purposes, it does not have an explicit obligation to delete collected data that are
no longer needed for the provision of the service or for billing purposes.

4.
As suggested by the Honourable Member, the possibility exists that, through obligations imposed
within the Union, American authorities get hold of traffic data that would otherwise not be available via
their own legal system.

5.
The Commission is fully engaged in ensuring compatibility between data protection and privacy
rights and law enforcement needs. The Commission is currently trying to clarify as much as possible how
national measures can be best reconciled with the legal requirements stemming from Community law,
from the European Convention on Human Rights and from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, bearing in
mind the Commission’s powers under the existing institutional framework.

6.
The Commission is involved in certain Council discussions on the subject of general traffic data
retention requirements. At this stage, the Commission calls for a dialogue on this issue with all interested
parties and considers premature to draw any conclusions on whether there is a need for any legislative
action at Union level, which under the third pillar can be tabled in Council by any Member State. If and
when a draft Framework Decision on retention of traffic data would be proposed, the Commission would
have to ensure its consistency with Community law requirements, and in particular with the new Directive
on privacy and electronic communications, subject to the limits of Community action in this area.

(1) Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal

data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (cid:1) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.