Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-04-16-Speech-3-109-811"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20140416.131.3-109-811"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the data retention directive was adopted at a very difficult time, as we have heard, and my group welcomes this very far-reaching and deep judgment. Of course, it was adopted at the time of terrorist outrages and so on, but that is not the only reason that this judgment is important. Many of those issues existed at that time and have now been corrected. We must acknowledge that, and my group does acknowledge that.
The ECJ judgment confirms that the current rules on data retention fail to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, security measures allowing police services to do the vital job of protecting citizens from serious crime and, on the other, protecting fundamental rights to privacy and data protection in today’s digital age by making sure data retention remains at all times proportional to risk. This judgment says that data retention can still happen, that we can address the security and terrorist risks, but we cannot collect bulk data as we did in the pre-Snowden era. This is extremely important. The data retention rules fail the fundamental rights test and this judgment is a testimony to the high standards of data protection and privacy that exist in our European legal framework, and that is why this judgment is so important.
In the post-Snowden era this judgment prohibits mass surveillance, which is now unequivocally held as an infringement of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to privacy and to data protection. Any such infringement of these fundamental rights must have clear justification and stringent safeguards in place, including a definition of serious crime, the purpose of access to data and, importantly, a system in place to control the access to data which should include judicial authorisation.
Following the judgment, questions now focus on what happens next. For us here in the European Parliament this is an opportunity to stress to the Council the importance of finding agreement on the text of the data protection package, especially the directive on law enforcement. We must now underline that in light of this judgment.
Parliament has already put forward its position and the next step in this debate is the completion of this legislation. We have said this following the Snowden revelations and following the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs inquiry and the resolution on mass surveillance. Yet again, we stand here in Parliament calling on the Council to recognise the importance of this legislative package and to quickly move forward with these negotiations to do justice to this seminal ECJ ruling."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples