Mr Pat Cox took one of his last decisions as President of the European Parliament yesterday when he referred the passenger name record agreement between the European Union and the United States to the European Court of Justice.
He was obliged to do so after the parliament's legal affairs committee once again voted that the agreement signed on May 28th, allowing for the transfer of 34 pieces of information about airline passengers to US authorities, inadequately reflects EU data protection legislation. Although the decision will not affect such transfers until the court rules, it is a hiccup for the agenda of today's EU-US summit in Dromoland Castle.
The agreement was negotiated by the European Commission and the US Department of Homeland Security after the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11th, 2001. It is intended to modify the unilateral decision by US authorities to seek such information. Most European airlines agreed to do so, under threat of fines and the possible loss of landing rights.
Despite the parliament's reservations the Council of Ministers approved the agreement. It allows for the transfer of information such as names, contact numbers, bank and credit card numbers, home and e-mail addresses for 3½ years, after which they will be destroyed. Information on food preferences, race or religion is excluded. The parliament is concerned that the lack of equivalent data protection and privacy rights in the US will allow such information to be given to private operators. The legal affairs committee has been heavily lobbied by consumer and human rights groups and has stuck to its position despite reservations by members of the European Peoples Party group, partly to assert its political entitlement to consultation. If the EU's new constitutional treaty is ratified, the parliament's position in dealing with such issues would be strengthened.
The affair highlights the differing philosophies underlying attitudes towards counter-terrorism on both sides of the Atlantic. US leaders believe they are at war with a new global enemy; security must have priority over human rights in these circumstances. European leaders say it is not a war and that the rule of law must be upheld in protecting civil liberties.
The agreement tries to strike a balance between these conflicting values, but this does not satisfy the parliamentary majority. As Mr Cox put it yesterday, there is a "new form of creeping extra-territoriality" behind the US policy, which should be tested by the court. Although this is a complex issue, it affects millions of people. The parliament should be congratulated for insisting it be scrutinised and tested so closely.