Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-10-23-Speech-2-600-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121023.48.2-600-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this is a never-ending story. I have lost count of the times we have discussed it here. It is a shameful situation that it takes an oral question today to elicit information from the Commission about what it plans to do next with regard to data retention. Let me be frank: instead of deluding itself, the Commission should stop playing games and should face up to reality. That includes admitting that data retention has failed.
The Commission’s aim of establishing uniform rules is quite simply misguided. One reason is that some Member States, due to their constitutional arrangements, are not in a position to transpose the European Directive. What’s more, we have a patchwork of arrangements in the other countries which have transposed the Directive. Some countries store data for six months, others for a year. Some only use the data when investigating serious crime; others use the data to investigate minor delictions. It is a terrible mess, and I do not think we have ever seen anything like it.
Now you are taking action against the German Government by referring the matter to the European Court of Justice. Curiously, you argue that Germany’s failure to transpose the Directive is likely to have a negative effect on the internal market and on the ability of the German police to investigate and prosecute serious crime. What did you get that from? How did you come up with that? No one can possibly know whether that claim is true. In fact, studies have revealed a very different picture. The available information includes not only the judgments of the courts and related studies. They also include activity reports such as those produced by the German Bundestag’s Research Services, which is genuinely above suspicion. In 2011, the Research Services found no significant evidence that data retention offers any benefits for the investigation of crime. The reports such as that produced by the Max Planck Institute in 2012 are also beyond reproach. That report states that data retention is of no use whatsoever in the investigation of murders, robberies, child pornography and internet crime.
Let me say this, Ms Malmström. If the Commission has nothing new to contribute here, you should at least suspend the Directive pending the judgment of the European Court of Justice. Aside from that, we are calling for a Europe-wide ban on the retention of communications data where there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples