Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-10-Speech-2-223"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050510.25.2-223"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the subject of citizenship and fundamental rights is certainly one of those that concern us most in this context. European citizenship will, in my view, be the synthesis of all our common values, the European principles in which we believe and which we have set down in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
That is precisely why we are not aiming in the action plan at strengthening the arsenals of repression – that is to say, we want to avoid a merely repressive and punitive approach. Instead, we are attempting to strike a balance between the need for investigation – the need to identify the perpetrators of crimes, especially terrorists and members of organised criminal gangs – and the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
That means, for example, strengthening legal and procedural rights, and an initial proposal is already before Parliament. It is not enough, as it is just an initial proposal for discussion, but others will follow to reinforce the concept of protecting people’s privileges, freedoms and rights.
Of these, the topic of personal data protection is the one that stands out, of course, and we shall be giving it particular attention. In this respect, I recently had a meeting with the European Data Protection Supervisor. I assured him that it was my intention to consult him in advance before submitting proposals, precisely so as to ensure that the various concerns about personal data protection, including those of the so-called Article 29 Committee, could be taken into account.
Such cooperation goes beyond the purely formal aspects, that is to say when the legal basis allows us to acknowledge him explicitly in the procedure, but extends to cases where we want to make sure in advance that the personal data protection rules are being observed. I have renewed an offer of informal collaboration with the Commission.
That applies to many areas. It applies to the dossier on the agreement signed with the United States during the last session – by the way, as I mentioned earlier, we are waiting for a decision from the Court of Justice before making our assessment. It certainly applies to the matter of their complying fully with the existing agreements with the European Union – I am referring to the specific incident that was mentioned today of a KLM flight that was not authorised to cross US airspace. I shall give an answer precisely about that incident in a moment.
The last subject to have been mentioned is immigration. The subject of immigration certainly has to be addressed as a whole: illegal immigration on the one hand, and Europe’s integration and legal immigration policy on the other. The honourable Member who spoke on this subject mentioned national competences. We all know that national competences only cover the number of people who can be allowed to enter a particular Member State, but there is a willingness among the Member States to agree on certain common rules, and that is the aim of the Green Paper that we issued in January.
Action by the European Union – rather than by individual countries – is therefore needed with regard to legal immigration as well, and not just illegal immigration. Of course, the number of immigrants to be allowed in is still left to the Member States’ discretion, and the Constitutional Treaty itself confirms this principle, as you all know.
Lastly, on the specific matter of the KLM flight, we have received some information which will be the subject of a written reply that will soon be arriving from the Commission, from Mrs Ferrero-Waldner’s office to be precise. As I have been asked, I can, however, reveal the gist of the information that we have received. It says that the passenger data for that flight had not been forwarded on a Passenger Name Record (PNR) basis – on which basis the Commission would have been able to intervene – but on the basis of a bilateral agreement between Mexico and the United States known as the APIS agreement. In such a case, therefore, the Commission cannot interfere in an agreement between the United States on the one hand and Mexico on the other, precisely because the PNR agreement was not invoked, on which basis we could, of course, have intervened. These are the initial points that I have been given, but the written reply will, of course, be much more detailed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples