Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-11-Speech-3-117"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Use of passenger data (PNR) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061011.15.3-117"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-11-Speech-3-1182
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Voggenhuber2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3,3 substitute; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3,3 vice-chair; AFCO (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3,3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3,3 unknown; Die Grünen - Die Grüne Alternative (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mrs in ’t Veld is not in the wrong play; this is about the defence of the rights of our citizens and the role of Parliament. It is just that the staging is a little tired and the cast is less than brilliant. Until the judgment of the European Court of Justice, what we were dealing with was the transfer of highly personal data on our citizens to a foreign country. The judgment has revealed that this transfer of data was illegal – and not just on formal grounds, Mrs Klamt. We passed on our citizens’ data without any legal basis – or, put another way, illegally. We are talking about a serious encroachment on fundamental rights without any legal basis. There is nothing formal about that. This should really make us think. What is it, then, that we are dealing with today? We are dealing with an agreement that represents a juridical continuation of this illegal transfer in the third pillar – that is to say, intergovernmental cooperation without the involvement of Parliament, without a public debate, outside the jurisdiction of the Court; without even the involvement of national parliaments, without ratification. When Mrs Klamt says that the USA has the right to determine who it admits into its territory and on what conditions, I would reply that, up to now, we have agreed that considerations of human dignity, international law and human rights impose certain limits on this. I really consider it an incredible absurdity when the Commission argues that we are passing on the data, but that the protection of our citizens’ fundamental rights will remain, as the USA has promised to guarantee the same level of data protection as we enjoy in Europe. Do we, then, together with the Americans, now constitute a single superstate? Do fundamental-rights considerations not forbid us to transfer our citizens’ data to foreign countries regardless of the level of data protection in force there? Do fundamental-rights considerations not forbid airlines to transfer data even to our authorities where to do so would infringe these rights? Personally, I have to say that the defence of the fundamental rights of European citizens indeed makes for a good play, but the cast and staging are dreadful."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph