WRITTEN QUESTION P-1483/03 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission. Protection of information concerning air passengers — Joint Declaration of 4 March 2003.
Date: 2003-04-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, air transport, cross-frontier data flow, data processing, data protection, decision-making, national law, personal data

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/35

The promotion of high and sustainable growth within developing countries themselves is one of the
4.
priorities of the Union’s external policy and is supported through a variety of financial and technical
assistance instruments world-wide. In its recent Communication on ‘Integrating migration issues in the
EU’s relations with third countries’ (1) the Commission has proposed several relevant policies, including ‘the
improvement of effective market access of developing countries’ products into the EU’,‘the enhancement of
south-south trade’, ‘the promotion of foreign direct investments into developing countries’, ‘the promotion
of outsourcing arrangements between developed and developing countries’ (notably in the information
technology and research and Technological development sectors), ‘the facilitation of migrants’ efforts to
contribute to the economic and social development in their countries of origin (without permanently
returning to it), etc. Workers’ remittances can contribute to higher and more stable growth in recipients’
countries, as supported by the fact that remittances are increasingly used for investment purposes.

(1) COM(2002) 703 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0035)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1483/03

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject: Protection of information concerning air passengers (cid:1) Joint Declaration of 4 March 2003

Since the beginning of March, airlines have been required by an American law, on pain of heavy fines, to
provide all kinds of
their passengers. The Commission recently issued a Joint
information about
Declaration with the USA on this subject.

Does the Commission agree that, in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EC, this is a field
where joint competence exists?

If so, when did the Commission inform the Member States of the relevant developments?

How are the Member States kept informed of the latest developments in this field?

Were the Member States in any way involved in the decision-making leading to the Joint Declaration of
4 March 2003?

Does the American law conflict with the national legislation of any of the Member States?

If so, which Member States and what are the consequences?

Are there any Member States which have concluded individual agreements with the USA on this subject?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The transfer of personal data by airlines to the American authorities is a complex issue, certain aspects of
which fall within the Community’s field of competence. The processing of personal data by airlines in the
context of their economic activities, for example, is clearly regulated by Community law. The information
requested by the US authorities includes this type of data.

Since 2002, the Commission has kept the Member States informed about the situation at meetings of the
Council’s Working Parties, particularly those dealing with transport and trans-Atlantic relations. The
Commission has also provided detailed information for the Committee set up by Article 31 of Directive
95/46/EC (1), which is composed of representatives of the Member States. This information was provided
on 12 December 2002 and 21 February 2003. The Commission also reported to Coreper on the latest
developments with the dossier, principally in February 2003 when discussions were held on the Joint
Declaration mentioned by the Honourable Member.

C 78 E/36

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Member States were not directly involved in the process leading up to the Joint Declaration. The
Commission would, however, stress that this declaration only aims to define a method for discussions with
the US authorities which might lead to a solution that is consistent with Community law. In this context,
the Commission has paid particular attention to the situation confronting European airlines, which are
faced with the conflicting demands made by two different legal systems and the threat of tough economic
sanctions which could even extend to the withdrawal of their landing rights in the USA.

The solution envisaged by the Commission is based on Article 25.6 of Directive 95/46/EC. This provision
allows the Commission to recognise that a third country ensures adequate protection of
the data
transferred to it. The Member States take part in the decision-making process through their involvement in
the Committee set up by Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC, as this Committee has to deliver an opinion on
the draft of the measures to be taken, in accordance with the comitology rules.

The Commission has not conducted a detailed examination into the compatibility of the US law with the
national legislation of the Member States, given that the proposed measures posed problems vis-à-vis the
requirements of Directive 95/46/EC, and all Member States legislation has to comply with that Directive.

Finally,
individual Member States and the USA.

the Commission has no knowledge of any agreements concluded on this subject between

(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281,
23.11.1995.

(2004/C 78 E/0036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1550/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Uncontrolled flows of

funds on the transfer of media ownership in Poland and possible

preferential treatment for Poland as a new EU Member State

Has the Polish government requested financial contributions from a newspaper in return for a change

1.
in the law which would make it easier for that newspaper to take over television companies?

2.
Have the financial contributions referred to in question 1 gone to in the Polish Exchequer to be used
for expenditure decided upon by the government and parliament and traceable in the government budget
and final accounts for the relevant financial year, or did the funds end up in the hands of private
individuals and/or organisations, details of which are not available to the public?

3.
If this action was in breach of Polish law, will the matter be brought before the courts, or are the
police under political pressure to restrict their investigations and inquiries, after which the case will be
dropped because of lack of evidence?

4.
Does the emphasis placed by Commissioner Verheugen in the Netherlands TV programme ‘It’s a
Knockout’ (KRO-Reporter) on 10 April 2003 on Poland’s large population compared with the nine others
States that will join the EU at the same time in 2004 mean that special priority is being given to Polish
membership? Is there a possibility that this priority may result in non-compliance with the EU ‘acquis’
being treated more flexibly in the case of Poland than in the case of other States?

5. Will Poland be judged by the same standards as those by which the other new Member States that
have complied with their obligations more fully will continue to be judged?

6.
On what basis does Commissioner Verheugen conclude that by the time of its accession on 1 May
2004 Poland will have completely satisfied the requirements of existing EU legislation? What guarantees
are there that this will happen on time? What is the Commission doing to prevent a return to the present
level of corruption after 1 May 2004?