WRITTEN QUESTION P-1532/03 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission. New technology and privacy and freedoms.
Date: 2003-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: computer crime, computer systems, data protection, disclosure of information, information technology user, protection of privacy, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 33 E/130

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

framework of a ’general price-control system’’. The case was brought to the Court by the Commission
under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and concerned measures adopted by the Italian Government in March
2000 to freeze compulsory motor insurance premiums for an initial period of one year.

Regarding the Honourable Member’s second question, the Commission would like to point out that,
according to the Insurance Directives, all European citizens are allowed to obtain motor insurance cover in
a Member State other than their country of residence.
insurance undertakings may also
provide cross-border services if they follow the procedures set out in these Directives.

In addition,

However, while the Union insurers are allowed to operate on a cross-border basis, they cannot be obliged
to insure risks they are not interested in, in accordance with the principle of contractual freedom. Given
the links of motor insurance with the territory in which the vehicle is normally used and the particularities
of the Italian insurance market as explained above,
it is not strange that many non-Italian insurance
undertakings may prefer to operate in Italy through local branches or subsidiaries (cid:1) rather than on a
cross-border basis from another EU country.

(1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of

laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/
EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2004/C 33 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1532/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject: New technology and privacy and freedoms

Is the Commission aware that there is currently new technology being developed which allegedly has
serious implications for citizens’ privacy, employment, freedom, independence and choice? The technology
involves embedding a chip into every new personal computer, so that hardware, software and applications
will only work if they are on an authorised list which is centrally owned and managed.

Is the Commission concerned that small companies would be prevented from registering their products on
the list as the costs would be too high (around EUR 91 000), and what action is the Commission
considering to limit this situation?

Can the Commission outline what measures are being taken to limit the impact on the European software
development industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

The Commission follows closely the technological and market developments in the Information Society.
The legal framework in the Union for matters of data protection is the Directive 95/46/EC of the
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 (1).

Several market players develop technologies that could potentially have a significant impact in the way
that users interact in the information society. Their influence in society is very much dependant upon the
specific features of each application and upon their commercial and business success. Experience with a
number of technologies shows that it is difficult to predict
the direction that the market and the
technological drivers behind it may eventually take.

The development of technologies based on embedded chips is not a new phenomenon. It has been tried in
the past by industry players. Similar efforts have also been made concerning the unique identification of
software and content-related material running on PCs. These technological measures have been more or
less successful.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/131

The introduction of such technologies may have both positive and negative policy implications. For
example, systems that allow the identification of computers may facilitate the more effective roll-out of
Digital Rights Management systems or help combat piracy and cybercrime or increase the level of
information security, but may also be infringing privacy rights or raising competition issues.

The Commission is presently looking at the data protection implications of some of these technologies
together with the Article 29 Working Party and it is expected that some documents regarding these matters
will be issued in the second half of 2003.

The Commission is active in supporting the development of so-called Privacy Enhancing Technologies
(PETs), through several activities, including among others those of the Joint Research Centre and the IST
Programme. The incorporation of PETs into privacy strategies receives its encouragement from Articles 6
and 17 of the above-mentioned Data Protection Directive, which require data controllers to minimise the
data collection and to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal
data, specially in network transmissions. The importance of privacy enhancing technologies has also been
emphasised by the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market as one of the messages
arising from the international conference on the implementation of the Data Protection Directive held last
autumn 2002 in Brussels.

The Commission favours a balanced and proportionate approach based upon the problems that the
technologies aim to solve, the measures they use to achieve that objective and the impact that these
measures have on users, industry and society as a whole.

The potential impact of any new developing technologies on European small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) or in the state of competition in the Single Market is and will be closely scrutinised by the
competent Commission services. The Commission will decide on any measures to be taken after this
scrutiny is completed.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2004/C 33 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1535/03

by Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza (PSE) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject: System for the trading of greenhouse gas emission allowances

The proposal for a directive establishing a system for the trading of greenhouse gas allowances could, on
entry into force of the directive, have very worrying consequences for some industries owing to the fact
that no account has been taken of very important factors such as:

1.

2.

3.

4.

the existence of companies with production units in several different European countries which could
adopt different and even contradictory provisions;

the indirect emissions that arise outside a company’s facilities but originate from energy sources used
in those facilities (e.g. blast furnace gases);

the distortions of competition that will arise between industries and between countries;

the transfer of allowances corresponding to transfers of capacities resulting from the closure of plants
belonging to the same group.

In the case of the iron and steel industry in particular, this limits very seriously the scope that companies
have for adapting to the directive, owing to specific characteristics of the sector such as the inability to
pass on increases in costs (very limited number of customers and raw materials suppliers), the fact there
are only two ways to produce steel (blast furnaces and electric furnaces, both of which are directly affected
by the directive) and the recycling of blast furnace gases (which reduces CO2 emissions and generates
energy without, paradoxically, the corresponding allowances being granted to the industry, but to the
energy companies instead).

Will the Commission bear these points in mind in order to avoid jeopardising the restructuring of a sector
which is at last managing to consolidate at Community level?