WRITTEN QUESTION P-1344/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Eurodac and data protection.
Date: 2003-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to information, admission of aliens, biometrics, data protection, database, disclosure of information, right of asylum, terrorism

C 33 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on
cross-border payments in euro establishes the principle of equal charges between strictly national payments
and cross-border payments in euro within Community territory. For electronic payments, the Regulation
entered into force on 1 July 2002. It will apply to transfers as of 1 July 2003. However, the principle of
equal charges does not apply to cheques because the legislator took the view that cheques have no future
as a method of cross-border payment.

During the first half of 2003 cross-border payments in euro will therefore continue to attract higher
charges than national transfers. This will change in July. Nothing will change as regards cheques, however:
the banking community is setting up a policy to deter cheque use which consists in either raising charges
further or stopping issuing cheques altogether.

By end-2002 a number of cases of non-compliance had been brought to the Commission’s attention. It
immediately contacted the various national authorities responsible for implementing the Regulation as per
Article 7, and the problems were quickly resolved. The banks in question did not dispute that mistakes had
been made either in printing documents (uncorrected lists of charges) or in applying charges to certain
type of payment.

The Commission will of course continue to monitor the correct implementation of Regulation (EC)
No 2560/2001 in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the Treaty.

(2004/C 33 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1344/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Eurodac and data protection

The Eurodac system of fingerprinting which was agreed by the European Union two years ago has finally
been introduced as part of an attempt to ensure that those claiming asylum in one EU Member State do
not, having gained entry to the Union, subsequently ‘shop around’ for asylum status in other Member
States.

There are reports, however, that the information contained on the Eurodac files will not be available to the
police forces of Member States but only to the immigration authorities under certain conditions because of
the EU Data Protection laws. Are these reports correct, and, if so, which provisions specifically exclude
information on non-EU citizens from being passed to national police forces?

Finally, if the police needed information on the identity or movement of suspected terrorists is it correct
that the Eurodac information would be denied to them, and, if so, how is that consistent with the need to
protect our citizens, the fight against terrorism or our international obligations to fight terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Eurodac system for comparing the fingerprints of asylum
applicants was set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 (1) for the sole
purpose of enabling the Dublin Convention to be efficiently applied (2).

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/107

Article 1 of the Regulation states:

Paragraph 1:

is hereby established, the purpose of which shall be to assist in
A system known as ‘Eurodac’
determining which Member State is to be responsible pursuant
to the Dublin Convention for
examining an application for asylum lodged in a Member State, and otherwise to facilitate the
application of the Dublin Convention.

Paragraph 3:

Without prejudice to the use of data intended for Eurodac by the Member State of origin in databases
set up under the latter’s national law, fingerprint data and other personal data may be processed in
Eurodac only for the purposes set out in Article 15(1) of the Dublin Convention.

The authorised objectives listed exhaustively in Article 15(1) of the Dublin Convention are as follows:

(cid:1) determining the Member State which is responsible for examining the application for asylum,
(cid:1) examining the application for asylum,
(cid:1) implementing any obligation arising under this Convention.

These objectives are incorporated unamended in Article 21(1) of Council Regulation No (EC) 343/2003 of
18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible
for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (3),
which replaces the Dublin Convention.

Consequently, even if a police force were the authority within a given Member State responsible for
performing one of the above tasks, the data in its possession could not be processed in Eurodac for
purposes of police investigation.

The legislation currently in force would have to be amended to allow Eurodac to be used for other
purposes while maintaining the necessary balance between public security requirements and the protection
of freedoms.

(1) OJ L 316, 15.12.2000.
(2) OJ C 254, 19.8.1997.
(3) OJ L 50, 25.2.2003.

(2004/C 33 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1359/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: Gran Sol fleet provisional rest period

The Galician fleet fishing in the Gran Sol grounds has planned a biological rest period from 1 July
onwards. In order that this biological rest period can go ahead with all the necessary guarantees in place
for the fleet involved, the relevant authorisation must be published in good time in the Official Journal of
the European Union (OJ).

Can the Commission give details of the steps it intends to take or has already taken to ensure that the fleet
involved can carry out this biological rest period and the relevant authorisation can be published in the OJ
in good time?