Raül Romeva i Rueda

Les dades PNR (Passangers Name Record) són aquelles que proporcionen els viatgers, recullen les companyies aèries, en relació a la compra de bitllets, reserves i sistemes de facturació (check-in). Donada la seva dimensió comercial, el PNR conté informació molt valuosa, i de tota mena: noms, adreces, números passaports, informació targetes de crèdit, informació d’altres viatgers, rutes de viatges, i agents de viatges. L’argument de fons, ens diuen, és que és per garantir la seguretat dels viatgers en el marc de la lluita contra el crim internacional i el terrorisme.

L’ús de la informació PNR per a objectius enfortiment legal és un tema que ens ha ocupat moltes hores a la Comissió LIBE, els darrers dos anys. En el passat s’han signat acords d’aquesta mena amb Estats units, Canadà i Austràlia (anys 2007 i 2008). Des de llavors s’han aplicat de manera provisional.

El PE va demanar la Comissió que negociés un nou acord amb cadascun d’aquests països. El 5 de maig de 2010 i l’11 de novembre de 2010 el PE va establir quins eren els criteris que havia de seguir un acord similar per poder comptar amb el consentiment de l’Eurocambra a un acord que impliqués la cessió de dades PNR a un país tercer.

La Comissió va arribar a un acord amb els Estats Units, i va enviar una recomanació al Consell el novembre de 2011, i concloure l’acord. Entre d’altres despropòsits (que adjunt més avall): destaco el fet que aquest acord obligarà a la UE a donar les seves dades als EUA, que els podran guardar durant 15 anys, però els EUA no estan obligats a fer-ho cap a la UE. On és la reciprocitat? I la proporcionalitat?

El nostre grup, Verds/ALE, considera que la proposta no compleix els principis establerts en la resolució del PE, i per tant donem suport a la proposta de la ponent, In’t Veld, de rebutjar l’acord. Tanmateix, sembla que les majories no estan al nostre costat. Una bona part del PPE i del SiD (no la totalitat), està a favor de concloure acord. Veurem què passa durant el vot d’aquest migdia.

Adjunto a continuació el resum (en anglès) de les raons per les quals no considerem que l’acord sigui acceptable:

Content and key points for our group

1. The EU-United States Agreement is the second of all PNR agreements to be voted on by the European Parliament after the agreement with Australia was agreed by Parliament in October. The Greens voted against the agreement with Australia. The agreement with the United States is to be viewed as even worse in our view and therefore should be rejected as well as outlined below.

2. The EP has consistently insisted on specific substance for any new agreement:

a)      better data protection, including purpose limitation, access and redress rights, limited storage periods, limited amount of data;

b)      an exclusion of data-mining and profiling;

c)      the use of PNR data only for cases of organised and transnational serious crime or terrorism of a cross-border nature;

d)      strict limitations for onward transfers to third agencies or countries, depending on an adequacy rating;

e)      independent review and judicial oversight.

3. The EP has consistently insisted on specific procedural steps before any new agreement is negotiated or concluded:

f)        the presentation of factual evidence by the Commission that the collection, storage, and processing of personal data are necessary and proportionate;

g)      a serious exploration by the Commission of less intrusive alternatives;

h)      a detailed opinion to be requested by the Commission from the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) on the fundamental rights dimension of any new agreement;

4. (Again) none of these conditions have been met.

5. On substance,

a)      the storage period of 15 years for all crimes, access will only be reduced after 10 years to terrorist cases.

b)      the agreement does not provide clarity on how PNR data can be used, despite ongoing concerns about its use for profiling. As a result, the US. authorities can subject travelers to intrusive checks and even travel bans without any initial suspicion, simply because they match a profile.

c)      the definition of “terrorism” in the agreement is broader than in Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism; the definition of “other crimes” is dependent on the criminal law of the United States and therefore subject to unilateral changes;

d)      the data can be transferred by the United States to third party agencies and countries, including intelligence agencies, while the respective adequacy rating is not done on a factual basis, but merely per definition, without sufficient safeguards and without any prior consent of the Member State from which the data originated;

e)      independent and judicial oversight under the Unites States Privacy Act is limited to US nationals

6. On procedure,

f)        the Commission has only presented anecdotal evidence for the usefulness of PNR data and has avoided a serious debate about necessity and proportionality;

g)      the Commission has not explored less intrusive alternatives such as provided by Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on Advanced Passenger Information (API), or through a restriction of data transfers for those where a lead or initial suspicion has already been established, nor has it been able to prove why 15  years of data retention are necessary and proportionate;

h)      the Commission has not requested the FRA to provide an opinion on the fundamental rights dimension of the agreement; the FRA opinion on the draft EU-PNR directive, which had been requested by the EP itself, raises a number of points with regard to profiling and discrimination.

7. There is serious doubt about the compatibility of the new PNR Agreement with the EU Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as can explicitly or implicitly be read in statements by the legal services of Council and Commission, studies commissioned by the EP; EDPS and FRA opinions, and several rulings by the European Court on Human Rights, the European Court of Justice, and national constitutional courts.

A comparative study on the 2011 PNR agreement with the US conducted on behalf of the group confirms these points ((Hornung and Boehm 14 March 2012)