Proposed exchange of personal data between Europol and USA evades EU data protection rights and protections


Two questions led to this item being withdrawn from the agenda of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 29 November: i) differences between a number of government over the question of liability (which has now been resolved) and ii) parliamentary scrutiny reservations (which have not been resolved).

On 4 December the chair of the UK parliament's Select Committee on the European Union (House of Lords) wrote to the Home Office Minister raising concerns on four issues: a) the scope of the proposed exchange of data which is not restricted to the remit of the Europol Convention; b) the apparently unlimited range of authorities in the USA who would have access to personal data provided by Europol; c) there should be an express reference to the fact that "Europol data should never be passed on by the United States"; d) asks for details on the "data protection bodies in the US which the US government has identified". The letter concludes: "In the meantime the sub-committee agreed to hold the document under scrutiny".

It is apparently planned to adopt the measure as an "A" Point (ie: without debate) at the General Affairs Council on Tuesday 10 December and for there to be a formal "signing" ceremony with the US on Wednesday 11 December.

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch, editor comments:

"The way this measure is being rushed through has provided no realistic opportunity for national and European parliaments or civil society to subject the proposal to proper scrutiny. The issues at stake are too important to be left to secret decision-making removed from democratic accountability."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story filed 27.11.02

On Friday 29 November the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Brussels will be discussing an agreement between Europol and United States authorities for the exchange of personal data which lacks fundamental data protection principles including the individual's right to know and challenge information held on them.

Way back on 18 October 2001 the EU negotiators presented the US authorities with details of "the data protection principles applicable to the processing of law enforcement" in the EU, the US side said they would respond by providing a similar brief - but this never arrived and the negotiators simply set about drawing up a new sets of rules. The reason the brief from the US never arrived is simply because the US does not have data protection laws - US citizens, but only US citizens, have some rights under its 1974 Privacy Act.

In every other agreement reached by Europol to exchange personal data with non-EU states the Joint Supervisory Body of Europol (responsible for data protections aspects) has presented a report on the data protection laws of the country in question before negotiations can be started. Europol treaties with 11 states and international organisations have so far been concluded, negotiations with a further five countries are underway and another 13 agreements are in the pipeline.

In this case the Joint Supervisory body admits that its Opinion (dated 3 October 2002) which gives the go-ahead is based on "general knowledge" and "presentations" by US officials.

What is even more extraordinary is that this Opinion of the Joint Supervisory Body makes no reference to Article 10 of the proposed agreement which covers "Access by private persons and entities". Under the Europol Convention the equivalent provision is Article 19 on the "Right of access" which although subject to initial veto of access, then provides for an appeal to the Joint Supervisory Body. Article 10 of the agreement is summarised in a UK Home Office Memorandum as meaning that: "The data should not be released if the transmitting party does not agree". So, for example, an individual would have no right of access to information or intelligence sent across by US authorities to Europol on them - the US would have the right of veto. Moreover, Eu

 

Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.

Report error