Opinion on the Communication from the Commission towards a European e-Justice Stragegy, OJ C 28, 06.06.2009, p. 13
The Communication aims to propose an e-Justice Strategy that intends to increase citizens' confidence in the European area of Justice. E-Justice's primary objective should be to help justice to be administered more effectively throughout Europe, for the benefit of the citizens. The EU's action should enable citizens to access information without being hindered by the linguistic, cultural and legal barriers stemming from the multiplicity of systems. A draft action plan and timetable for the various projects are annexed to the Communication.
E-Justice has a very wide-ranging scope, including in general the use of ICT in the administration of justice within the European Union. This covers a number of issues like projects providing litigants with information in a more effective way. This includes online information on judicial systems, legislation and case law, electronic communication systems linking litigants and the courts and the establishment of fully electronic procedures. It covers also European projects like the use of electronic tools to record hearings and projects involving information exchange or interconnection.
The EDPS supports the present proposal to establish e-Justice and recommends taking into account the observations made in his opinion, which includes:
Opinion on the Initiative of the French Republic for a Council Decision on the use of information technology for customs purposes, OJ C 229, 23.09.2009, p. 12
The EDPS notes that the Proposal involves various aspects relating to fundamental rights, in particular the protection of personal data as well as the right to information and other data subject's rights.
The EDPS is particularly interested in the new developments concerning the Third Pillar part of the CIS, given that he already exercises supervisory tasks over the central part of the First Pillar part, in accordance with the new Regulation 766/2008 amending Council Regulation 515/97 on mutual assistance between administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation (...) to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters.
Opinion on the Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation [...] on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System, OJ C 137/01 12.05.2012, p1
See also the text of the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation [...] on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System
The objective of the Proposal is to modernize and amend the existing text of Directive 2005/36/EC (the Professional Qualifications Directive). From the data protection perspective, the two key aspects of the Proposal are (i) the introduction of an alert system and (ii) the introduction on a voluntary basis of a European Professional Card . The processing of personal data in both cases is foreseen to take place via the Internal Market Information System (IMI).
The EDPS welcomes the efforts made in the Proposal to address data protection concerns. The EDPS also welcomes the fact that the use of an existing information system, IMI, is proposed for the administrative cooperation, which already offers, at the practical level, a number of data protection safeguards. Nevertheless, important concerns remain, mainly relating to the alert system, which must remain proportionate.
The EDPS recommends, in particular, that:
With regard to the European Professional Card and the related ‘IMI-file’, the EDPS recommends further clarifications on the conditions under which information concerning disciplinary action or criminal sanctions or any other serious specific circumstances must be included in the file, and the content of the information to be included, and also recommends clear limitation on the retention periods.
Further, the EDPS recommends that in the long term, if and when the use of Professional Cards and IMI will become widespread, the Commission undertake a review of whether the Article 56a alert systems are still necessary and whether they cannot be replaced by a more limited, and thus, from the data protection point of view, less intrusive, system.
Finally, the EDPS further recommends that the EDPS and Article 29 Working Party where national data protection authorities are also represented be consulted before the adoption of delegated acts referred to in Article 56a(5) and of any other delegated acts adopted under Article 58 which may have an impact on data protection. A data protection impact assessment should precede such consultation.
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment of the European Criminal Record Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2008/XX/JHA, OJ C 42, 20.2.2009, p. 1
Opinion on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, and a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds
Opinion on the proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, OJ C 200, 06.08.2008, p. 1
On 26 March 2008, the EDPS adopted an opinion on the Commission's proposal aiming at revising the 2004 Council Regulation that sets out minimum standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents.
The EDPS welcomes the introduction of exemptions from giving fingerprints based on the age of the person or his/her inability to provide fingerprints. However, he still considers these exemptions as insufficient to remedy the imperfections of biometrics, such as the impact of misidentification or failure to enrol.
The EDPS' opinion includes the following recommendations:
The EDPS recalls that exemptions should in no way stigmatize or discriminate individuals who will be exempt, because of their age as a precautionary principle or because they present obviously unreadable fingerprints
Letter regarding the Public consultation on the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services under Directive 2010/40/EU
Annex 2 - EDPS Formal comments on the Commission Delegated Regulations supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and the Council with regard to "Data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users" and "Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles"
Opinion on the Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the implementation of Decision 2007/…/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, OJ C 89, 10.4.2008, p. 1
Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for law enforcement purposes, OJ C 110, 01.05.2008, p. 1
Finally, the EDPS advises not to adopt the draft Decision before the new Lisbon Treaty's entry into force, so that it can follow the co-decision procedure foreseen by the new Treaty and the European Parliament is fully involved.
Opinion on the Initiative with a view to adopting a Council Decision concerning the strenghtening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA, OJ C 310, 5.12.2008, p. 1
On 25 April 2008, the EDPS adopted an opinion on the Initiative of 14 Member States with a view to adopting a Council Decision concerning the strengthening of Eurojust. The initiative aims at further enhancing the operational effectiveness of Eurojust. The EDPS was not asked for advice on this initiative, although a significant part of the initiative deals with the - conditions for - processing of personal data by Eurojust. The opinion was therefore issued on his own initiative.
In his opinion, the EDPS emphasises that he understands the need to improve the legal framework of Eurojust. However, he regrets that the initiative was not accompanied by an impact assessment, together with an analysis of the shortcomings of the existing rules and the expected effectiveness of the new provisions.
Furthermore, the opinion highlights the various arguments in favour of waiting for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Other issues addressed in the opinion are the provisions on data protection, the relations with third parties and the supervision.
Opinion on the Communication from the Commission "EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe"
See also the text of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - "The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe".
Opinion on the Communication from the Commission on an Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe and the accompanying Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes, OJ C 47, 25.02.2010, p. 6
The EDPS has adopted an opinion on the European Commission's proposed deployment plan for intelligent transport systems (ITS) in Europe that was adopted in December 2008 to accelerate and coordinate their deployment in road transport and their connection with other modes of transport. The deployment of ITS has considerable privacy implications, for instance because these systems make it possible to track a vehicle and to collect a wide variety of data relating to European road users' driving habits.
The EDPS notes that data protection has been taken into consideration in the proposed legal framework and that it is also put forward as a general condition for the proper deployment of ITS. He however underlines that the Commission's proposal is too broad and too general to adequately address the privacy and data protection concerns raised by ITS deployment in the Member States. In particular, it is not clear when the performance of ITS services will lead to the collection and processing of personal data, what are the purposes and modalities for which data processing may take place, or who will be responsible for compliance with data protection obligations.
The EDPS opinion includes the following main recommendations:
ITS apply information and communication technologies (satellite, computer, telephone, etc.) to transport infrastructure and vehicles with the intention to make transport safer and cleaner and to reduce traffic congestion. ITS applications and services are based on the collection, processing and exchange of a wide variety of data, both from public and private sources, including information on traffic and accidents but also personal data, such as the driving habits and journey patterns of citizens. Their deployment will also rely to a large extent on the use of geolocalisation technologies, such as satellite-positioning and RFID tags. As such, ITS constitute a "data-intensive area" and raise a number of privacy and data protection issues that should be carefully addressed in order to ensure the workability of ITS across Europe.
Opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ C 2, 7.01.2009, p. 7
The Opinion reacts on the Commission's proposal aimed at reviewing the rules on public access to documents held by EU institutions. The Opinion focuses on an amended provision dealing with the relation between public access to documents and the protection of personal data. Although the EDPS welcomes the Commission's intention to clarify the delicate interaction between public access and data protection, he feels that the substance of the proposed amendment fails to provide the appropriate answer. He therefore proposes a different provision to stimulate discussions in Parliament and Council.