WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Forwarding of information about passengers flying between the EU and the USA.
Date: 2003-09-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, air transport, personal data, protection of privacy, rights of aliens, terrorism, transport user

C 65 E/208

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Does the Commission rule out the possibility that fee increases on the scale introduced in the last
1.
two revisions constitute a ‘new restriction’ prohibited within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional
Protocol to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and Article 13 of Decision 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
Association Council?

If not, does the Commission propose to take measures, for example by initiating an investigation

2.
seeking to clarify the compatibility of fee increases with the provisions referred to in question 1?

Has the Commission had any comments from the Turkish side, or held consultations with the

3.
Turkish authorities, concerning the Dutch fee increases in relation to the Association Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of the increases in fees charged by the Netherlands concerning residence permits
referred to by the Honourable Member. In order to ascertain whether they may constitute a new restriction
within the meaning of the Community-Turkey Association Agreement, the Commission is in the course of
writing to the Netherlands to seek further details.

The Commission has not received representations from Turkey on this issue.

(2004/C 65 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2756/03

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject: Forwarding of information about passengers flying between the EU and the USA

The EU has decided to provide such detailed information about passengers flying from the EU to the USA
that it even includes credit card numbers.

Does the EU apply reciprocal requirements to those travelling from the United States to the European
Union? If not, why does the EU not require the same information from the USA as the USA does from the
EU? Will the EU introduce a requirement for information about passengers to be provided in the same
detail as the USA requires?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission has not decided that information about passengers should flow to the United States.
In fact, the US authorities have unilaterally imposed on airlines flying to, from and through the United
States the obligation to provide access to Passenger Name Record (PNR) information, which is likely to
contain personal details regarding the passengers, as well as information about the reservation and the
flight.

The Commission considers that this requirement may conflict with EC data protection rules and is holding
discussions with the relevant US authorities to find a solution that fully respects both US and EC law and
makes the US authorities’ legitimate objective of fighting terrorism (cid:1) which the Union fully shares (cid:1)
compatible with the need to protect citizens’ fundamental rights, including the protection of their personal
data.

In the discussions with the US authorities the Commission has made clear that it considers certain aspects
of the US request for access to passenger data in its current terms as disproportionate. This has also been
highlighted by the Parliament and by some national data protection authorities in Member States.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/209

Discussions are currently being held between the Commission and the Member States to determine what
the appropriate and most extensive permissible use of PNR data in the fight against terrorism might be.
The Commission has always insisted on respect for the principle of reciprocity in its discussions with the
US authorities.

(2004/C 65 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2758/03

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Entry into force of the motor vehicle block exemption regulation

The deadline for the changeover to the new motor vehicle block exemption regulation expires on
1 October 2003. Some vehicle manufacturers have terminated all dealer agreements and intend to
conclude new contracts with their distributors. According to current information, the overwhelming
majority of agreements have been drafted in such a way as to be diametrically opposed to the block
exemption regulation. The objective was to liberalise the motor vehicle trade in order ‘to strengthen the
position of dealers and repair shops and allow them to develop their business to the benefit of customers’
(Commission press release of 25 July 2003 (cid:1) IP/03/1117). Statements issued by many dealer associations,
however, show the opposite to be the case. Excessive regulations, standards and specifications are being
used in an attempt to restrict competition and make a nonsense of liberalisation.

The Commission:

1.

Is it aware of the contents of the draft agreements of certain vehicle manufacturers and what is its
view of developments in the dealer distribution systems in relation to the deadline of 1 October 2003?

2. What options does it have to counter distorted developments which are contrary to the objectives of

the new block exemption regulation?

3. What measures will it take if it comes to the conclusion that the position of dealers and repair shops

is not strengthened and business is not developed to the benefit of customers?

4. What further steps will it take in regard to implementing and monitoring the measures implemented
to achieve the objectives of the motor vehicle block exemption regulation? Is it also considering, if
necessary, revoking the regulation and completely deregulating the distribution systems?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

1.
The Commission has examined copies of certain contracts supplied to it by interested third parties.
The Commission has found problems with some of these, and has intervened to bring them into line with
the new rules.

2.
The Commission has been concerned to ensure that the transition from the old framework under
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the
Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (1), to the new regime
under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of
the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (2), takes
place as smoothly as possible. The Commission issued an explanatory brochure in last September 2002 to
help interested parties to understand their obligations under the new rules. Moreover, the Commission has
been on hand to give advice to dealers, repairers, and manufacturers concerning the new Regulation, and
where appropriate has intervened to ensure that agreements are brought into line with the competition
rules.