WRITTEN QUESTION E-0152/04 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Collection of biometric data at Eleftherios Venizelos airport, their processing by an external partner and the decision of the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data.
Date: 2004-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, Italy, air transport, biometrics, data processing, personal data, protection of privacy, transport safety, transport user

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/541

The policy that individual Member States follow on this matter depends on a number of factors and takes
into account local customs and habits as well as the fact that ingestion of fluoridated compounds may also
result from the use of fluoridated toothpastes, fluoride rinses, fluoride treatments in dental offices, food and
beverages. At present, the Commission is not promoting nor funding specific research into the safety of
water fluoridation.

(2004/C 84 E/0618)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0152/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject: Collection of biometric data at ‘Eleftherios Venizelos’ airport, their processing by an external

partner and the decision of the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data

The Greek airport of ‘Eleftherios Venizelos’ is taking part in a pilot programme to collect biometric data
from airline passengers. The programme is funded by the European Union and the other participants are
the International Air Transport Association, Milan airport and Alitalia. In a recent decision, the Greek
Authority for the Protection of Personal Data ruled that the collection and processing of biometric data
was illegal, even on a voluntary basis, and prohibited the continuation of the programme.

Is it possible for the European Union to fund such programmes without the prior approval of the

1.
data protection authorities in the countries concerned, in this case Greece and Italy?

Does the Commission intend to withdraw financial and political support for such programmes
2.
immediately since the decision by the Greek Authority for the Protection of Personal Data has created a
new legal framework for EU decisions on checking the identity of European citizens by means of biometric
data?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Honourable Member makes an implicit reference to the s-Travel project (ref: IST-2001-3825).
1.
It must be remembered that Community funded projects must work within the existing legal framework at
the EU and Member State levels.

The main objective of this project was to strengthen airline passenger security by early adoption of
biometric technologies in the airport boarding process.

One task of the project was to design and to implement the security measures to be set up in pilot
activities in the Eleftherios Venizelos Airport and in Milan Airport. These security measures were in
conformity with the ones identified in the light of the working paper (1) adopted on 1 August 2003 by the
Working Party described hereafter (see: question 2.). The purpose of that document was to provide general
guidelines relating to the processing of biometric data and to contribute to a common understanding of
the different issues.

Another task was to run biometric enrolment and checking kiosks. Authorisations to run these kiosks were
requested in July 2003 before the start of this task. The Greek authority gave a negative answer in October
2003. Decision was taken to terminate the project in conformance with the Commission procedures and
to not fund this final trial phase.

C 84 E/542

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

It should be noted that experiments (not funded under Community programmes) of the same type have
been launched and pursued without objections from the relevant authorities in other airports of the
European Union, for example Aéroport de Paris (France), Schiphol (the Netherlands), London City Airport
(United Kingdom).

The decision of the Greek authority concerns only the specifics of the s-Travel project. This decision

2.
does not have an impact on other research on the use of biometric technologies.

Since biometric data are personal data, any such research must take place in conformity with the data
protection legal requirements, in particular Directive 95/46/CE 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 (2). Article 29 of that Directive created a Working Party (WP) in this area.
It is an independent EU advisory body composed of national supervisory authorities. The Working Party
has concluded that further work is necessary, especially in the context of travel security, and that in the
meantime the responsibility remains with the industry to develop biometric systems that are data
protection compliant.

Furthermore, in the Conclusions of the Council of Thessaloniki, Members States have confirmed the need
for a coherent approach in the EU on biometric identifiers and on biometrics data for travel documents,
and invited the Commission to prepare proposals (currently underway). In this context, research projects,
carried out in full conformity with the legal framework, can contribute useful information and data.

The Commission will continue to work with Member States on biometric issues as these technologies have
a tremendous potential in increasing the security of European citizens. This will be done in close co-
operation with the Data Protection Authorities of Member States.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp80_en.pdf
(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

(2004/C 84 E/0619)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Infringement of religious freedom in Italy, Spain and Portugal

Given the provisions contained in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights with regard to religious freedom
and cultural and religious diversity, and Article 6(1) and (2) of the TEU, and the fact that the International
Report on Religious Freedom drawn up annually by the US State Department contains the following
details in its 2003 edition:

(cid:1) The 1984 Concordat between the Italian Government and the Catholic Church grants the latter
privileges including the selection of state-paid teachers who provide religious instruction in public
schools, which other confessions do not enjoy;

(cid:1) ‘The Catholic faith is not a state religion, [but] its role as a dominant religion gives rise to problems’,
one area of conflict being that when certain Italian Catholic politicians joined the Pope in demanding
that the European Constitution include an explicit recognition of Europe’s Christian heritage; in January
2002 the Pope called on Italian lawyers to boycott divorce cases, and in June 2002, the Italian
Parliament adopted legislation, with Vatican approval, banning the use of donated sperm for artificial
insemination purposes;

(cid:1) The Spanish Government provides little assistance to Protestant and Muslim leaders for public and
religious education; likewise, there have been cases in which certain officials have refused permission
to Muslim spiritual leaders to provide religious services in prisons, although this is habitually granted
to Catholic clergy;