Source: http://eulawradar.com/case-a-115-the-canada-eu-pnr-agreement-contrary-to-the-eu-charter/
Timestamp: 2017-02-27 05:20:23
Document Index: 644920219

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Case A-1/15, The Canada-EU ‘PNR’ Agreement – contrary to the EU Charter? | EU Law Radar
Posted on 13 April 2015 by admin	Canada and the EU have negotiated a new Passenger Name Record Agreement. A plank of the Agreement involves the transfer and processing of data. The European Parliament is asking the CJEU for a legal opinion on the compatibility of that Agreement with the EU Charter.
After the CJEU’s judgment in Case C-293/12, Digital Rights Ireland, which declared the EU’s Data Retention Directive to be invalid, the European Parliament has requested a legal opinion from the CJEU about the new Passenger Name Record Agreement which the EU has negotiated with Canada.
According to a Resolution of the European Parliament dated 25 November 2014, the opinion is to centre on whether this Agreement complies with various provisions of EU law and the EU Charter.
Of particular concern to the European Parliament is the Agreement’s compatibility with Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the EU Charter as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data. The European Parliament also queries the choice of legal basis of the Agreement, namely Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU (police and judicial cooperation) rather than Article 16 TFEU (data protection).
According to the Curia website, the European Parliament has asked:
1. Is the envisaged agreement [Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data][…] compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16 TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8 and Article 52(1)) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data?
2. Do Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act of the Council concluding the envisaged agreement or must that act be based on Article 16 TFEU?
Three years ago, concerns about privacy and the enforcement of intellectual property rights sparked a high-profile dispute between the EU Commission and EU Parliament. The EU Commission escalated the dispute by asking the CJEU for a legal opinion about the compatibility of the ACTA international trade agreement with the EU Charter; see further, Case A-001/12, ACTA – is an international IP law trade agreement compatible with EU law? In the end, the EU Commission withdrew its request before the CJEU had given its legal opinion, and ACTA was not implemented in the EU.
In contrast, the European Parliament’s request for the CJEU’s legal opinion in respect of the PNR Agreement is almost out of the public eye. Notwithstanding the fact that the EP decided to ask for the legal opinion in November 2014, the Curia website indicates this only arrived at the CJEU on 30 January 2015. It has also taken a further 10 weeks for the CJEU to publish the questions on its website.
In those intervening 10 weeks, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU has heard another ‘transfer and data processing’ case involving the EU Charter, Case C-362/14, Schrems – does a ‘safe harbour’ shelter states that deprive EU citizens of their EU Charter rights?
In a couple of days’ time, the CJEU’s Fourth Chamber will also hand down a quartet of judgments about privacy, passports and ID cards in Case C-447/12, Kooistra; Case C-446/12, Willems; Case C-448/12, Roest; and Case C-449/12, van Luijk.
Readers interested in international trade agreements and EU law more generally, might also look at Case T-754/14, Efler. This is a case which has been brought against the EU Commission about the ‘Stop TTIP’ citizens’ initiative. The case is now being heard by the EU’s General Court. According to the EUR-Lex website, Case T-754/14, Efler and Others concerns:
First plea in law: By assuming that the proposed citizens’ initiative does not fall within its competence, the Commission infringed Article 11(4) TEU as well as Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011.[…]
Yesterday, the European Parliament debated the possibility of exchanging PNR data with Mexico.
Update – 1 May 2015
The issue of American companies, and the non-protection of EU privacy and data processing rights is also at stake in Case C-192/15, Rease – secretly spied on, medical data leaked, and left unprotected by the Dutch regulator.
Update – 6 March 2016
The Grand Chamber is due to hear the Canada-EU ‘PNR’ Agreement case on 5 April 2016.
Update – 12 August 2016
The Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi is due to be given to the Grand Chamber on 8 September 2016.
This entry was posted in E-Commerce, International Conventions, Privacy and data processing, Procedural law and tagged air travel, charter, data processing, data retention, external relations, jurisdiction, privacy, procedural law by admin. Bookmark the permalink.	Recent Posts	Case C-629/16, CX – against Austrians stopping Turks from trucking