WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Yielding to the USA's pressure on airlines to supply unlimited quantities of data concerning passengers in advance of a possible agreement.
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, United States, air transport, customs regulations, disclosure of information, personal data, protection of privacy, transport company, transport user

C 84 E/806

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

‘high health regions’. This would allow Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to attain
official designation as areas which are free from potato ring rot and enable a ban to be imposed on the
import of seed from non-designated areas. This strategy would achieve the dual aims of stemming the
spread of the disease and ensuring that disease-free areas are able to cultivate healthy potato crops.

Would the Commission agree that measures such as those being proposed by the farmers of Scotland and
Ireland would assist in preventing the spread of this disease and indicate what needs to be done at EU as
well as at national or devolved level of government to achieve these aims?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

We are well aware of the outbreak of potato ring rot to which the Honourable Member refers and are
carefully monitoring the situation, on which we are regularly updated by the British authorities. On the
proposals made by Scottish and Irish farmers, we must point out that the Union already has appropriate
legislation in place for preventing appearance of this disease on its territory and controlling it if it does
occur. The legislation is Directive 2000/29/EC (1), enacting health provisions in connection with entry into
the Union and movement within it of plants and plant products, including potatoes, and Directive 93/85/
EEC (2), which contains a set of very detailed technical measures for thwarting the appearance of this
disease and controlling it. Under the Community provisions no movement of potatoes is possible unless
the plant health requirements have been met, namely that they are free of ring rot, in the case of seed
potatoes are accompanied by a plant health passport attesting that fact, and in the case of ware potatoes
that the grower or packer is officially registered. We do not see what further measures could be added.
Moreover, under single market rules once harmonised technical measures are in place no prohibition for
plant health reasons on movement within the Community is permitted.

(1) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community
of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, OJ L 169,
10.7.2000. Last amended by Commission Directive 2003/116/EC, OJ L 321, 6.12.2003.

(2) Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the control of potato ring rot, OJ L 259, 18.10.1993.

(2004/C 84 E/0901)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Yielding to the USA’s pressure on airlines to supply unlimited quantities of data concerning

passengers in advance of a possible agreement

1.
Is the Commission aware that (cid:1) before any agreement has been concluded between the EU and the
USA (cid:1) the Dutch airline KLM is supplying all the data requested by the US Customs Service (cid:1) including
credit card numbers, e-mail addresses and dietary preferences (cid:1) concerning passengers on flights landing
at US airports, whereas other European airlines such as Alitalia, in compliance with national legislation, are
not doing so?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/807

Can the Commission confirm that this supply of data, which may contravene national and European
2.
standards for the protection of privacy, is taking place under the threat that passengers may be detained
for hours after landing and that airlines may be fined USD 5 000 per passenger, be barred from entering
US airspace or have their landing rights withdrawn?

3.
Does the US Customs Service store these data for three and a half years? What US institutions other
than the Customs Service have access to the data? For what purpose are the data passed to other parties
and for how long are they stored by them?

4.
Does the Commission accept that the USA should subject European passengers to measures against
terrorism or crime which do not apply to US citizens and which the USA also would not accept from
other states?

5. What would have to change in comparison with the current situation before an agreement with the
USA on exchanges of personal data of air passengers might possibly be worthwhile? Does the Commission
see any prospect that agreement on this may be possible within the next five years?

Ought the European airline which complies least with the US requirements to be the yardstick for

6.
other European airlines?

Under what circumstances will the Court of Justice of the European Communities ultimately decide

7.
on the lawfulness of compliance by EU-based operators with these US practices?

Source: TV Nederland 3, ‘Nova’, 12 February 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

1. Most EU-based airlines are complying with the United States requirement to provide Passenger Name
Records (PNR) introduced by Congress in legislation adopted in November 2001 and applied since March
2003. This is as noted in the Joint Statement agreed between the Commission and the competent United
States authorities on 18 February 2003. The Joint Statement marked the beginning of negotiations which
have allowed the Commission to secure a number of significant improvements in the way the United
States processes PNR data they receive.

2.
The United States legislation concerned does indeed foresee the possibility of sanctions against
airlines that do not comply, including those mentioned by the Honourable Member. The US authorities
have not however, to the Commission’s knowledge, applied any such sanctions since the negotiations
referred to above began.

3.
Present United States practice is as set out in the Joint Statement. Under the new Undertakings
negotiated with the United States by the Commission which will come into effect once the proposed
Adequacy Finding and international agreement are effective, the data retention period will be limited to
three and a half years. Data may only be shared on a case by case basis with other authorities involved in
combating terrorism and law enforcement for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism and
related crimes, other serious crimes, including organized crime, that are transnational in nature, and flight
from warrants or custody for these crimes.

4.
No. The United States requirements apply to all airline passengers on flights to or from the United
States, regardless of their nationality or place of residence. The United States authorities participating in the
negotiations with the Commission have indicated that they see no obstacle or objection to the provision to
authorities in the EU of PNR concerning flights to or from EU locations.

5.

The Commission’s position is set out fully in its Communication of 16 December 2003 (1).

The Commission’s objective throughout

6.
conditions that will allow airlines to comply with their legal obligations on both sides of the Atlantic.

the above-mentioned negotiations has been to create

C 84 E/808

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

As provided for in the EC Treaty, the European Court of Justice can be called upon to review the
7.
legality, ‘inter alia’, of acts of the Council or of the Commission, including therefore the legal instruments
which the Commission is in the process of putting in place. Actions may be brought by a Member State,
the Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an
essential procedural requirement,
infringement of the EC Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its
application, or misuse of powers.

(1) COM(2003) 826 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0902)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/04

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Requirement to keep poultry indoors

On Thursday, 12 February 2004, the executive of the Netherlands Poultry and Eggs Marketing Board
decided to make it compulsory for chickens, turkeys and ducks on poultry farms to be kept indoors. This
measure is intended to prevent possible infection with the avian flu virus during the present bird
migration, which will last until the end of April.

Ought not this measure to be made compulsory immediately throughout the European Union,

1.
in view of the international nature of bird migrations?

2. Will the Commission call on amateur poultry-keepers to adopt the same measures?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The ‘Productschap Pluimvee en Eieren (PPE)’ has, according to the information gathered by the
Commission, asked the Dutch authority if the compulsory locking up of poultry is considered to be a
veterinary necessity as a preventive measure against an infection of avian influenza by migratory birds. The
Dutch authorities have considered this question, but after a balanced deliberation of advantages and
disadvantages did not order compulsory locking up of poultry.

The Commission agrees that measures to prevent and control avian influenza must be risk based, whilst
risk management measures must consider both benefits and costs. Measures aimed at reducing contact of
migratory wild birds with domestic poultry and bio-security measures on poultry farms, including hobby
farms, should in principle reduce the risk of Avian Influenza virus
the
epidemiology of this disease is complex and there are still a lot of unknown factors. There is also
insufficient knowledge and experience indicating if the benefits in terms of reduction of risk of infection of
poultry by wild birds by a draconian measure like locking up poultry in the whole Community outweigh
the undesirable environmental and social consequences and the possible negative impact on animal
welfare.

transmission. However,

In order to improve knowledge on these issues the Commission, following the advice of the Scientific
Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, has coordinated and co-financed a survey in the
Member States to estimate the prevalence and distribution of Avian Influenza in wild birds and poultry, in
particular as regards the so-called Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza. This survey was conducted in 2003
and will be executed again in 2004. The Commission might forward proposals on the Community’s policy
on avian influenza in the light of the results of these surveys.