BETA


2016/3004(RSP) Opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties on the Agreement between the US and the EU on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offenses

Progress: Procedure rejected

Events

2016/12/01
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
2016/12/01
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
2016/12/01
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2016/12/01
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament rejected two motions for resolution presented pursuant to Rule 108(2) of the Rules of Procedure on seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offenses.

1) In the first motion for resolution , presented by the GUE/NGL group (and rejected by 165 votes to 442, with 36 abstention), Members considered that that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the draft agreement is compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16 of the TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data and Article 47 as regards the availability of an effective judicial remedy).

Members at the origin of the motion for resolution noted that:

according to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), there are concerns that the supervisory data protection authorities (DPAs) in the US do not meet the Court of Justice requirements for being considered fully independent and with effective powers of intervention; the US Judicial Redress Act does not overturn the existing exemptions to data subject rights which certain systems of records in the US may provide pursuant to the US Privacy Act, such as PNR data; Parliament’s Legal Service has pointed out that the EU-US Umbrella Agreement (specifically Article 5(3)) will serve as a form of adequacy decision, creating a ‘ de iure ’ legal presumption of compliance by the US with EU data protection standards and potentially undermining real compliance with EU Data Protection law.

2) In this second motion for resolution , presented by the ALDE group (and rejected by 206 votes to 394, with 42 abstentions), Members considered that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the agreement is compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8, 21, 47 and 52(1)) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data, the principle of non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.

Members at the origin of the motion for resolution noted that:

to date, the European Union or its Member States have not been designated by the US Department of Justice as a ‘covered country’ for its citizens to be able to bring civil actions against certain US government agencies under the Privacy Act of 1974; the judicial remedies afforded by the US Judicial Redress Act would not be granted to non-EU nationals in the Union whose personal data are processed and transferred to the US pursuant to the Agreement; the current US legislation includes various limitations and preconditions as to the scope of application, the causes of action provided, the designation of agencies covered, and the application of the Privacy Act of 1974 in law enforcement matters; personal data processed on the basis of the EU-US Agreement on Passenger Name Records (PNR) and the EU-US Agreement on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the EU to the US for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) are currently exempted from the provisions on civil remedies under the Privacy Act of 1974.

Members considered that:

attention should be paid to the following points: the definitions of the concepts of ‘personal data’ and ‘data processing’ differ from the EU definitions; the data retention period should be defined more strictly in relation to the purpose pursued; the restrictions to an individual’s access rights are very broad and access could be improved by the establishment of an indirect access right mechanism.

2016/12/01
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament

Documents

Activities

Votes

B8-1304/2016 #

2016/12/01 Outcome: -: 442, +: 165, 0: 36
AT EL IE CY LU LV SE MT EE LT FI SI DK BE FR HR CZ PT HU SK BG NL IT ES RO DE GB PL
Total
15
18
10
4
5
7
16
6
6
9
13
8
9
21
61
11
17
18
16
12
16
23
65
42
24
82
59
49
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
42

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2
4

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
36

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

2

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: ENF ENF
35

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Romania ENF

1

Germany ENF

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1
2
icon: EFDD EFDD
34

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

France EFDD

Against (1)

1

Germany EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
14

France NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Hungary NI

For (1)

1

Italy NI

Against (1)

1

Germany NI

1

United Kingdom NI

3

Poland NI

1
icon: ECR ECR
65

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Denmark ECR

2

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
63

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Croatia ALDE

2

Czechia ALDE

4

Portugal ALDE

2

Romania ALDE

3

Germany ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
164

Austria S&D

Against (1)

3

Greece S&D

Abstain (1)

4

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Malta S&D

3

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

2

Finland S&D

Against (1)

2

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1
3

Belgium S&D

Against (1)

4

Croatia S&D

2

Czechia S&D

Abstain (1)

4

Bulgaria S&D

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands S&D

Against (2)

2
icon: PPE PPE
189

Luxembourg PPE

Against (2)

2

Sweden PPE

Against (1)

2

Malta PPE

For (1)

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

2

Finland PPE

3

Belgium PPE

Abstain (1)

4

B8-1305/2016 #

2016/12/01 Outcome: -: 394, +: 206, 0: 42
AT SE FI EE EL LT LU LV IE NL DK BE MT SI CY FR HR ES BG SK IT PT HU CZ RO DE GB PL
Total
16
16
13
6
17
9
5
7
10
23
9
21
6
8
4
61
11
42
16
12
64
18
16
17
24
82
59
49
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
42

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
4

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Hungary Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
35

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

4

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

France GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: ENF ENF
35

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Romania ENF

1

Germany ENF

For (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1
2
icon: ALDE ALDE
63

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

3

Lithuania ALDE

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

3

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Bulgaria ALDE

Against (1)

4

Portugal ALDE

2

Romania ALDE

3

Germany ALDE

Against (1)

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
34

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

France EFDD

Against (1)

1

Germany EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
14

France NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Italy NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

1

Germany NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

3

Poland NI

1
icon: ECR ECR
65

Finland ECR

2

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Denmark ECR

2

Cyprus ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria ECR

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Slovakia ECR

For (1)

3

Italy ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
164

Finland S&D

Against (1)

2

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

1

Greece S&D

Abstain (1)

4

Lithuania S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

Against (2)

2
3

Belgium S&D

Against (1)

4

Malta S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2

Croatia S&D

2

Bulgaria S&D

Abstain (1)

3

Slovakia S&D

For (1)

4

Czechia S&D

4
icon: PPE PPE
189

Sweden PPE

Against (1)

2

Finland PPE

3

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania PPE

Against (1)

2

Luxembourg PPE

Against (2)

2

Belgium PPE

Abstain (1)

4

Malta PPE

3
5

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-8-2016-1304_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2016-1304_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2016-1305_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2016-1305_EN.html
events/1/type
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Decision by Parliament
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 114-p6
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 114-p6
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2016-1304&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2016-1304_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2016-1305&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2016-1305_EN.html
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 108-p6
New
Rules of Procedure EP 114-p6
activities
  • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
    docs
    • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2016-1304&language=EN title: B8-1304/2016 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2016-1305&language=EN title: B8-1305/2016 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    events
    • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=27963&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
    • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The European Parliament rejected two motions for resolution presented pursuant to Rule 108(2) of the Rules of Procedure on seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offenses. 1) In the first motion for resolution , presented by the GUE/NGL group (and rejected by 165 votes to 442, with 36 abstention), Members considered that that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the draft agreement is compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16 of the TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data and Article 47 as regards the availability of an effective judicial remedy). Members at the origin of the motion for resolution noted that: according to the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), there are concerns that the supervisory data protection authorities (DPAs) in the US do not meet the Court of Justice requirements for being considered fully independent and with effective powers of intervention; the US Judicial Redress Act does not overturn the existing exemptions to data subject rights which certain systems of records in the US may provide pursuant to the US Privacy Act, such as PNR data; Parliament’s Legal Service has pointed out that the EU-US Umbrella Agreement (specifically Article 5(3)) will serve as a form of adequacy decision, creating a ‘ de iure ’ legal presumption of compliance by the US with EU data protection standards and potentially undermining real compliance with EU Data Protection law. 2) In this second motion for resolution , presented by the ALDE group (and rejected by 206 votes to 394, with 42 abstentions), Members considered that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the agreement is compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8, 21, 47 and 52(1)) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data, the principle of non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Members at the origin of the motion for resolution noted that: to date, the European Union or its Member States have not been designated by the US Department of Justice as a ‘covered country’ for its citizens to be able to bring civil actions against certain US government agencies under the Privacy Act of 1974; the judicial remedies afforded by the US Judicial Redress Act would not be granted to non-EU nationals in the Union whose personal data are processed and transferred to the US pursuant to the Agreement; the current US legislation includes various limitations and preconditions as to the scope of application, the causes of action provided, the designation of agencies covered, and the application of the Privacy Act of 1974 in law enforcement matters; personal data processed on the basis of the EU-US Agreement on Passenger Name Records (PNR) and the EU-US Agreement on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the EU to the US for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) are currently exempted from the provisions on civil remedies under the Privacy Act of 1974. Members considered that: attention should be paid to the following points: the definitions of the concepts of ‘personal data’ and ‘data processing’ differ from the EU definitions; the data retention period should be defined more strictly in relation to the purpose pursued; the restrictions to an individual’s access rights are very broad and access could be improved by the establishment of an indirect access right mechanism.
    • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
    links
    other
      procedure/Modified legal basis
      Old
      Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 108-p6
      New
      Rules of Procedure EP 108-p6
      procedure/subject
      Old
      • 1.20.09 Protection of privacy and data protection
      • 7.40.04 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
      New
      1.20.09
      Protection of privacy and data protection
      7.40.04
      Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
      procedure/subtype
      Old
      Resolution on statements
      New
      • Resolution on statement
      • See also 2016/0126(NLE)
      procedure/summary
      • See also
      activities/0
      date
      2016-12-01T00:00:00
      body
      EP
      type
      Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
      procedure/stage_reached
      Old
      Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
      New
      Procedure rejected
      activities/0
      date
      2016-12-01T00:00:00
      body
      EP
      type
      Vote in plenary scheduled
      activities
      • date: 2016-12-01T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in plenary scheduled
      committees
        links
        other
          procedure
          reference
          2016/3004(RSP)
          title
          Opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties on the Agreement between the US and the EU on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offenses
          geographical_area
          United States
          stage_reached
          Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
          summary
          See also
          subtype
          Resolution on statements
          Modified legal basis
          Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 108-p6
          type
          RSP - Resolutions on topical subjects
          subject