Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-29-Speech-3-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020529.10.3-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the new electronic communications regulatory framework entered into force a month ago on 24 April. The proposed electronic communications data protection directive is the only element of the package still to be agreed between this House and the Council. Adequate rules on the protection of privacy on line are just as essential for the sector as rules to ensure competitive markets.
For similar reasons, we cannot introduce a provision on the cost of law enforcement measures in this directive, as proposed in Amendment No 39. Nevertheless, I can assure Mrs Cederschiöld that the Commission will actively pursue this matter with the Member States.
The compromise Amendments Nos 46 and 47 jointly submitted by PPE-DE and PSE signify a very important improvement of the Council's common position on the topic of data retention. They strengthen considerably the human rights aspect of the relevant provisions and also refer to case law by the Strasbourg Court on the European Convention of Human Rights. The Commission fully supports these improvements and urges the European Parliament to do the same.
However, if the sentence on data retention is deleted from Amendment No 46 as proposed by the requested split vote, the whole compromise would unravel and this would surely lead to conciliation with an even more uncertain outcome. The Commission understands the concerns that have motivated the request for a split vote, but feels that the current text addresses these concerns sufficiently.
Finally, the issue of public subscriber directories remains to be solved. While less debated that the opt-in for solicited commercial
mail, similar issues are at stake for proposed harmonised opt-in regarding directories. A non-harmonised solution as proposed in Amendment No 35 is not sustainable with the internal market.
In summary, an agreed overall solution between all institutions is within reach if the European Parliament tomorrow accepts Amendments Nos 9, 13, 18, 25, 26, 28, 37, 38 and 44 to 50. The result will be a directive with great added value for European citizens and for the development of the information society.
Today, I would like to ask you to join in the ongoing effort to try and reach an agreed solution on this directive at its second reading to avoid any further delay. The seven compromise elements that have been tabled by the PPE-DE and PSE, together with three amendments submitted by the Citizens' Freedom Committee and five further amendments submitted by the PPE-DE constitute a package of compromise texts that are acceptable both to the Council and the Commission.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cappato, who has put a lot of time and energy into this file. May I also pay special credit to Mrs Palacio and Mrs Paciotti, for their continuous efforts to try and find an overall package that would be acceptable to all institutions involved.
On all four main and outstanding issues, some balanced solutions are now on the table. All sides have had to make concessions and nobody is perfectly happy with every element of the package as is the nature of a compromise. On cookies, Amendments Nos 25 and 26 align the relevant provisions with the general data protection directive.
On unsolicited
commercial mail, the Council has accepted further concessions to accommodate those in Parliament not in favour of a harmonised policy. Amendments Nos 9, 18, 28, 44 and 45 are acceptable, both for the Council and the Commission. The exception clause would apply to direct marketing by the same company of similar categories of products or services. One such category could, for instance, be books, CDs and DVDs. Another category could be household appliances. This is really as far as we can go without ending up with unsatisfactory solutions for both citizens and businesses.
We need a clear, harmonised approach for the entire EU market, that does not force customers to pay the bill for unwanted direct marketing by
mail, SMS and other message services. This is the best boost for electronic messaging services and e-commerce in general.
On traffic data retention, discussions have been particularly difficult. The Commission appreciates the strong feelings in this House regarding the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The Commission fully shares these feelings and, like Parliament, is currently promoting the inclusion of a Charter on Fundamental Human Rights in the EU Treaty, so that it will become legally binding and directly enforceable.
As we have said from the start of the discussions, the directive we are debating today is not a third pillar instrument. It imposes legal limitations on what we can usefully include in the provisions of the directive, both with regard to any national measures for public security or crime-fighting and with regard to safeguarding individual rights and freedoms.
As the Commission has emphasised in its recent submission to the European Convention, we think that the separation between the three pillars causes numerous difficulties and should therefore be abandoned. But as long as the pillars exist, we are forced to respect them, because the European Court of Justice would not uphold any third pillar elements included in a first pillar directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples