Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-04-21-Speech-3-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100421.5.3-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by saying to Mr Seeber that I was in fact present this morning at the debate to which he was referring. Even though I had not been officially invited, you, ladies and gentlemen, asked me to come and I came: I was present and spoke in that debate. Perhaps it was he who was not here, just as he is not in this session now and has left the Chamber.
I would like to point out here that the Council is firmly committed to approving a mandate that protects the fundamental rights of European citizens, and which applies and is absolutely faithful to and in accordance with the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights – which forms part of the Treaty of Lisbon – and the European Convention on Human Rights, which the EU proposes to sign in the coming months as one of the goals marking the beginning of this new political stage of the Union.
Well, I wanted to say that the debate we have had was, in my view, highly constructive. I believe it shows that there is a real spirit of cooperation on both sides, among all the parties involved: Parliament, the Commission and the Council. The rapporteur, Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, acknowledged the spirit of cooperation she could see in the Council – for which I am very grateful – and also in the Commission. I am grateful that she has said so publicly.
Indeed, there is no doubt whatever that both the mandate that the Commission has put forward through Mrs Malmström and the mandate that the Council will approve will very much take account of and find inspiration in the concerns and positions expressed in your speeches and in the motion or draft motion for a resolution proposed by the rapporteur.
I have noticed that there is a series of problems that concern you in particular, and I want to assure you that those problems and concerns that you have mentioned will form part of the negotiating directives that the Council is going to approve. The negotiations will be directed by the Commission and will result in something that the Council and Parliament will have to sign. The first item in those negotiating directives will be the problem that has been brought up repeatedly here this afternoon: bulk data transfer.
Mr Albrecht, Mr Busuttil, Mrs Sippel, Mrs Sargentini, Mrs Svensson, Mr Paška, Mr De Rossa and several others have raised this issue. I would like to tell you that we cannot, of course, accept indiscriminate bulk transfer, whatever may be requested for any purpose. It is not about that. It is about data that is requested solely for preventing, investigating and prosecuting terrorist crimes and terrorist financing and, moreover, with individualised objectives regarding a particular person where there are grounds for thinking that that person has a nexus or relations with terrorism or its financing. We are therefore not looking at mass transfer of such data; the objective and the subject place very clear bounds on that transfer of data.
In addition, there will be a European authority through which that data will be requested, and afterwards there will also be a check, essentially carried out by the Commission, on the use of said data and on the operation of the agreement that is to be signed. I therefore believe that there is a mechanism in place that is perfectly able to answer the concerns that have been raised here on this issue.
The retention period for data has also been mentioned. The retention period for data is set at around five years, because it is obviously necessary to retain the data for a minimum period of time for reasons of effectiveness. It must be made clear, though, that the period must be as short as possible and no longer than is necessary to achieve the objective. The objective – the need to retain the data – must always be absolutely well defined; otherwise it would not make sense. Data must always be retained with an objective and in relation to a specific person.
You have also shown your concern regarding people’s rights to have access to, to be informed about and to correct their data. Mr Coelho, for example, who is not here at the moment, expressed this in some detail. I can tell you that the negotiating directives agree with the draft mandate drawn up by Mrs Malmström in that those rights will be assured. The rights of information, access and correction will and must be assured in the agreement to be signed.
The principles of necessity and of proportionality will be assured in the negotiating directives and in the agreement that is eventually signed. The possibility of appeal will be assured – administrative appeal and judicial appeal – without discrimination on the basis of nationality or for any other reason. Therefore, in relation to the concerns raised by Members, including Mrs Bozkurt and Mrs Vergiat, all that will be assured. In addition, there will be absolute reciprocity. This is one of the topics that was most emphasised in the previous debate, which we all remember. There will be absolute reciprocity with regard to the United States. That is another of the characteristics of the negotiating directives that the Council will approve and which agree with what you have said here and with the motion for a resolution proposed by Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples