BETA


2008/2650(RSP) Resolution on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of passenger name record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes

Progress: Procedure completed

Legal Basis:
RoP 136-p5

Events

2009/03/10
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2008/11/20
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
2008/11/20
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2008/11/20
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

Following the debate which took place during the sitting of 20 October 2008, the European Parliament adopted by 512 votes to 5, with 19 abstentions, a resolution tabled by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes.

On procedural aspects : Parliament takes the view that law enforcement authorities should be provided with all the tools they need to carry out their tasks adequately, including access to data. It emphasises, however, that since such measures have a considerable impact on the personal life of Union citizens, their justification in terms of necessity, proportionality and usefulness in achieving their stated objectives needs to be convincingly substantiated. Effective safeguards for privacy and legal protection must be put in place. This is a precondition for lending the necessary political legitimacy to a measure which citizens may view as an inappropriate intrusion into their privacy. Members regret that the formulation and justification of the Commission's proposal have left so many legal uncertainties with respect to compatibility with the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as its legal basis, which has raised questions as to the appropriate role for Parliament in the legislative procedure. Under these conditions Parliament must reserve its formal opinion under the formal consultation procedure until the concerns raised in this resolution are properly addressed and the minimum information necessary is provided.

Members maintain their strong reservations as to the necessity for and added value of the proposal for the establishment of an EU PNR scheme and the safeguards which it contains. They share the view of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) that the mere availability of commercial databases does not automatically justify their use for law enforcement purposes. Moreover, the same or even better results could be obtained by improving mutual legal assistance between law enforcement authorities.

Parliament invites the Council to take into account the recommendations in this resolution and to justify the conditions of pressing social need which could make this new EU intervention 'necessary', as required under Article 8 of the ECHR. These are the minimum conditions of support for the introduction of an EU PNR scheme. Parliament states that it is ready to contribute and participate in this work at all levels.

It goes on to recall that the Court of Justice of the European Communities has already challenged the EU-US PNR Agreement on the grounds that its legal basis is wrong. The Commission is asked to examine carefully which legal basis is appropriate.

Possible future legislation establishing an EU PNR scheme as a new framework for EU police cooperation should contain provisions for periodic evaluation of its implementation, application, usefulness and breaches of safeguards. National parliaments, the EDPS, the Article 29 Working Party and the FRA should be invited to play a role in both review and evaluation. Parliament considers, therefore, that the new legislation should include a sunset clause.

Subsidiarity : Parliament notes with concern that the need for Community action has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. It questions the claim by the Commission that the aim of the proposal is harmonisation of national schemes, when only a few Member States have a system for the use of PNR data for law enforcement and other purposes. It considers that the Commission's proposal does not harmonise national systems (as they are non-existent), but merely creates the obligation for all Member States to set up such a system.

Proportionality : Members deplore the fact that the purpose of this envisaged police cooperation measure is not limited to issues such as combating terrorism and organised crime. They are concerned that, in essence, the proposal gives law enforcement authorities access to all data without a warrant. Parliament points out that the Commission has not demonstrated the need for new law enforcement powers, or that this goal cannot be achieved with less far reaching measures. It criticises the fact that there is no information as to how existing law enforcement powers fall short of what is needed, and where and when the authorities have demonstrably lacked the powers they needed for the stated purpose.

Parliament adds that there is no evidence to substantiate the Commission's claim that the EU has been able to assess the value of PNR data and to realise its potential for law enforcement purposes. It points out that any information so far provided by the US is anecdotal and the US has never conclusively proven that the massive and systematic use of PNR data is necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The preliminary conclusions from the UK system for the use of PNR data refer to law enforcement purposes other than counterterrorism, which fall outside the scope of the Commission's proposal, and to the use of PNR on a case-by-case basis in the context of ongoing investigations, on the basis of a warrant and with due cause. So far they provide no evidence of the usefulness of the mass collection and use of PNR data for counterterrorism purposes.

Purpose limitation : Parliament stresses that the principle of purpose limitation is one of the basic principles of data protection. It deplores the lack of precise purpose limitation and considers that such protection is even more important as regards secret surveillance measures, given the heightened risk of arbitrariness in such circumstances. As the stated purposes and definitions are imprecise and open-ended, they should be strictly specified to avoid exposing the EU PNR scheme to legal challenge. Furthermore, Parliament reiterates its concerns regarding the measures outlining an indiscriminate use of PNR data for profiling and for the definition of risk assessment parameters.

Protection of personal data : the adoption of an adequate data protection framework under the third pillar is an absolute precondition for any EU PNR scheme, as are specific rules for the transfer and use of PNR data that are not covered by the EU data protection framework under the first and third pillars.

Details of implementation : as regards storage periods, the Commission fails to justify the proposed retention period. Parliament considers, however, that for the purpose of developing risk indicators and establishing patterns of travel and behaviour, anonymised data should be sufficient. Members reiterate that data transfers should be made using the PUSH method alone and that third countries should not have direct access to PNR data in EU reservation systems. Passengers must be informed in full and in an accessible manner of the details of the scheme and of their rights.

Consequences for carriers : airlines should not be required to collect any data additional to those which they are collecting for their commercial purposes. Parliament considers that air carriers should not be made responsible for verifying whether records are complete and accurate, nor should any sanctions be applied in respect of incomplete or incorrect data. It calls for a clear evaluation of the costs involved in an EU PNR scheme, and considers that any additional costs should be borne by the requesting parties.

Intermediaries/ Passenger Information Units (PIUs): the resolution calls for a clear definition of the role and powers of the PIUs, in particular in terms of democratic accountability and in order to lay down appropriate data protection rules. The role of PIUs must be limited to the transfer of data to competent authorities, in order to ensure that risk assessments may only be carried out by competent authorities and in the context of an inquiry.

Documents
2008/11/20
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2008/10/20
   EP - Oral question/interpellation by Parliament
Documents
2008/10/20
   EP - Debate in Parliament
Details

O-0100/2008

A motion for a resolution closing this debate was due to be put to the vote at a forthcoming part-session.

Documents

Activities

Votes

B6-0615/2008 - Union européenne et données PNR - résolution #

2008/11/20 Outcome: +: 512, 0: 19, -: 5
DE FR ES IT PL GB NL RO BE PT HU CZ SE BG DK FI EL IE SK AT LV SI LT EE LU CY MT
Total
75
63
38
41
36
40
20
19
19
17
16
17
14
13
13
12
13
11
11
10
6
6
6
6
6
5
3
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
203

Austria PPE-DE

3

Latvia PPE-DE

2

Slovenia PPE-DE

3

Lithuania PPE-DE

1

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Cyprus PPE-DE

2

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: PSE PSE
146

Czechia PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Slovakia PSE

2

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1

Malta PSE

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
71

Hungary ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Austria ALDE

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
31

Spain Verts/ALE

1

Italy Verts/ALE

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

France GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: UEN UEN
27

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1

Lithuania UEN

2
icon: NI NI
19

Italy NI

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

3

Belgium NI

Abstain (1)

1

Bulgaria NI

2

Slovakia NI

2

Austria NI

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
14

France IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Poland IND/DEM

3

United Kingdom IND/DEM

3

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Czechia IND/DEM

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2008-0476_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2008-0476_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2008-0615_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2008-0615_EN.html
events/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20081020&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20081020&type=CRE
events/2
date
2008-11-20T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0561_EN.html title: T6-0561/2008
summary
events/2
date
2008-11-20T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0561_EN.html title: T6-0561/2008
summary
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 136-p5
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 128-p5
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2008-476&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2008-0476_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2008-615&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-6-2008-0615_EN.html
docs/2/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-561
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0561_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2008-10-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20081020&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2008-11-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16415&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-561 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0561/2008 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
    docs
    • date: 2008-10-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2008-476&language=EN title: B6-0476/2008 type: Oral question/interpellation by Parliament body: EP
    • date: 2008-11-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B6-2008-615&language=EN title: B6-0615/2008 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    • date: 2009-03-10T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=16415&j=0&l=en title: SP(2009)400 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
    events
    • date: 2008-10-20T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20081020&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament summary: O-0100/2008 A motion for a resolution closing this debate was due to be put to the vote at a forthcoming part-session.
    • date: 2008-11-20T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16415&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
    • date: 2008-11-20T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-561 title: T6-0561/2008 summary: Following the debate which took place during the sitting of 20 October 2008, the European Parliament adopted by 512 votes to 5, with 19 abstentions, a resolution tabled by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes. On procedural aspects : Parliament takes the view that law enforcement authorities should be provided with all the tools they need to carry out their tasks adequately, including access to data. It emphasises, however, that since such measures have a considerable impact on the personal life of Union citizens, their justification in terms of necessity, proportionality and usefulness in achieving their stated objectives needs to be convincingly substantiated. Effective safeguards for privacy and legal protection must be put in place. This is a precondition for lending the necessary political legitimacy to a measure which citizens may view as an inappropriate intrusion into their privacy. Members regret that the formulation and justification of the Commission's proposal have left so many legal uncertainties with respect to compatibility with the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as its legal basis, which has raised questions as to the appropriate role for Parliament in the legislative procedure. Under these conditions Parliament must reserve its formal opinion under the formal consultation procedure until the concerns raised in this resolution are properly addressed and the minimum information necessary is provided. Members maintain their strong reservations as to the necessity for and added value of the proposal for the establishment of an EU PNR scheme and the safeguards which it contains. They share the view of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) that the mere availability of commercial databases does not automatically justify their use for law enforcement purposes. Moreover, the same or even better results could be obtained by improving mutual legal assistance between law enforcement authorities. Parliament invites the Council to take into account the recommendations in this resolution and to justify the conditions of pressing social need which could make this new EU intervention 'necessary', as required under Article 8 of the ECHR. These are the minimum conditions of support for the introduction of an EU PNR scheme. Parliament states that it is ready to contribute and participate in this work at all levels. It goes on to recall that the Court of Justice of the European Communities has already challenged the EU-US PNR Agreement on the grounds that its legal basis is wrong. The Commission is asked to examine carefully which legal basis is appropriate. Possible future legislation establishing an EU PNR scheme as a new framework for EU police cooperation should contain provisions for periodic evaluation of its implementation, application, usefulness and breaches of safeguards. National parliaments, the EDPS, the Article 29 Working Party and the FRA should be invited to play a role in both review and evaluation. Parliament considers, therefore, that the new legislation should include a sunset clause. Subsidiarity : Parliament notes with concern that the need for Community action has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. It questions the claim by the Commission that the aim of the proposal is harmonisation of national schemes, when only a few Member States have a system for the use of PNR data for law enforcement and other purposes. It considers that the Commission's proposal does not harmonise national systems (as they are non-existent), but merely creates the obligation for all Member States to set up such a system. Proportionality : Members deplore the fact that the purpose of this envisaged police cooperation measure is not limited to issues such as combating terrorism and organised crime. They are concerned that, in essence, the proposal gives law enforcement authorities access to all data without a warrant. Parliament points out that the Commission has not demonstrated the need for new law enforcement powers, or that this goal cannot be achieved with less far reaching measures. It criticises the fact that there is no information as to how existing law enforcement powers fall short of what is needed, and where and when the authorities have demonstrably lacked the powers they needed for the stated purpose. Parliament adds that there is no evidence to substantiate the Commission's claim that the EU has been able to assess the value of PNR data and to realise its potential for law enforcement purposes. It points out that any information so far provided by the US is anecdotal and the US has never conclusively proven that the massive and systematic use of PNR data is necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The preliminary conclusions from the UK system for the use of PNR data refer to law enforcement purposes other than counterterrorism, which fall outside the scope of the Commission's proposal, and to the use of PNR on a case-by-case basis in the context of ongoing investigations, on the basis of a warrant and with due cause. So far they provide no evidence of the usefulness of the mass collection and use of PNR data for counterterrorism purposes. Purpose limitation : Parliament stresses that the principle of purpose limitation is one of the basic principles of data protection. It deplores the lack of precise purpose limitation and considers that such protection is even more important as regards secret surveillance measures, given the heightened risk of arbitrariness in such circumstances. As the stated purposes and definitions are imprecise and open-ended, they should be strictly specified to avoid exposing the EU PNR scheme to legal challenge. Furthermore, Parliament reiterates its concerns regarding the measures outlining an indiscriminate use of PNR data for profiling and for the definition of risk assessment parameters. Protection of personal data : the adoption of an adequate data protection framework under the third pillar is an absolute precondition for any EU PNR scheme, as are specific rules for the transfer and use of PNR data that are not covered by the EU data protection framework under the first and third pillars. Details of implementation : as regards storage periods, the Commission fails to justify the proposed retention period. Parliament considers, however, that for the purpose of developing risk indicators and establishing patterns of travel and behaviour, anonymised data should be sufficient. Members reiterate that data transfers should be made using the PUSH method alone and that third countries should not have direct access to PNR data in EU reservation systems. Passengers must be informed in full and in an accessible manner of the details of the scheme and of their rights. Consequences for carriers : airlines should not be required to collect any data additional to those which they are collecting for their commercial purposes. Parliament considers that air carriers should not be made responsible for verifying whether records are complete and accurate, nor should any sanctions be applied in respect of incomplete or incorrect data. It calls for a clear evaluation of the costs involved in an EU PNR scheme, and considers that any additional costs should be borne by the requesting parties. Intermediaries/ Passenger Information Units (PIUs): the resolution calls for a clear definition of the role and powers of the PIUs, in particular in terms of democratic accountability and in order to lay down appropriate data protection rules. The role of PIUs must be limited to the transfer of data to competent authorities, in order to ensure that risk assessments may only be carried out by competent authorities and in the context of an inquiry.
    • date: 2008-11-20T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
    links
    other
      procedure/legal_basis/0
      Rules of Procedure EP 128-p5
      procedure/legal_basis/0
      Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 128-p5
      procedure/subject
      Old
      • 1.20.09 Protection of privacy and data protection
      • 7.10.04 External borders crossing and controls, visas
      New
      1.20.09
      Protection of privacy and data protection
      7.10.04
      External borders crossing and controls, visas
      procedure/subtype
      Old
      Debate or resolution on oral questions
      New
      Debate or resolution on oral question/interpellation
      procedure/title
      Old
      Resolution on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes
      New
      Resolution on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of passenger name record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes
      activities
      • date: 2008-10-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20081020&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
      • date: 2008-11-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16415&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-561 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0561/2008 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
      committees
        links
        other
          procedure
          reference
          2008/2650(RSP)
          title
          Resolution on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes
          legal_basis
          Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 128-p5
          stage_reached
          Procedure completed
          subtype
          Debate or resolution on oral questions
          type
          RSP - Resolutions on topical subjects
          subject