Advertisement

EU PNR: European Flight Passengers Under General Suspicion – The Envisaged European Model of Analyzing Flight Passenger Data

  • Franziska BoehmEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

After 9/11 the United States of America as well as other countries discovered the collection and evaluation of flight passenger data, so called passenger name records (PNR), as a new tool to track terrorists and other criminals. The use of the PNR was meant to help to identify potential terrorists before they reach American territory. Despite being criticized for fundamental rights violations, the EU is on the threshold of imitating the American PNR system. This contribution analyses the current state of play of the proposed EU PNR system by taking into account its scope and its compliance with basic European data protection rules.

Keywords

Council Framework Decision European Data Protection German Constitutional Data Retention Directive Admissibility Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Accompanying document to the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes from 12 November 2007 – impact assessment, 2007/0237 (CNS), 14922/07.Google Scholar
  2. Additional protocol to the Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows from 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on the processing of Advanced Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record data, OJ 2006, L-82/15.Google Scholar
  4. Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Unites States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), OJ 2007, L-204/18.Google Scholar
  5. Annual report 2009 of the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, Eurocontrol, http://www.eurocontrol.int/epr/public/standard_page/AnnualReport.html (accessed August 25, 2010).
  6. Brouwer, E. “Towards a European PNR system? Questions on the added value and the protection of fundamental rights,” study requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs (LIBE) (2009).Google Scholar
  7. Bundesverfassungsgericht, 1 BvR 518/02, Judgment on governmental profiling of the German Constitutional Court.Google Scholar
  8. Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 March 2010, 1 BvR 256/08, judgment related to the implementation of the Data Retention Directive.Google Scholar
  9. Bundesverfassungsgericht, Volkszählungsurteil, BVerfGE 65, 1, Census decision of the German Constitutional Court.Google Scholar
  10. Case C-301/06 Ireland v. Parliament and Council [2009] ECR I-593.Google Scholar
  11. Convention No. 108 of the Council of Europe for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data from 28 January 1981.Google Scholar
  12. Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of air carriers to communicate passenger data, OJ 2004, L-261/24.Google Scholar
  13. Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, OJ 2008, L-350/60.Google Scholar
  14. Council Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism, OJ 2002 L-164/03.Google Scholar
  15. Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ 2002, L-190/1.Google Scholar
  16. Curtea Constitutionala, 8 October 2009 number 1258, Romanian Official Monitor no. 789 of 23 November 2009, judgment related to the implementation of the Data Retention Directive.Google Scholar
  17. De Hert, P., and R. Bellanova. “Data protection from a transatlantic perspective: The EU and US move towards an international data protection agreement?” study requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs (LIBE) (2008).Google Scholar
  18. De Vries, K., R. Bellanova, and P. de Hert“Proportionality overrides Unlimited Surveillance, The German Constitutional Court Judgment on Data Retention”, Centre of European Policy Studies, Liberty and Security in Europe, (2010), http://www.ceps.eu/book/proportionality-overrides-unlimited-surveillance (accessed August 25, 2010).
  19. Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, OJ 2006, L-105/54.Google Scholar
  20. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ 1995, L-281/31.Google Scholar
  21. Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, OJ 1998, L-24/1.Google Scholar
  22. ECtHR, Amann v. Switzerland, Application no. 27798/95 from 16 February 2000.Google Scholar
  23. ECtHR, Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, Application no. 62540/00 from 28 June 2007.Google Scholar
  24. ECtHR, Biriuk v Lithuania, Application no. 23373/03 from 25 November 2008.Google Scholar
  25. ECtHR, C.C. v. Spain, Application no. 1425/06 from 6 October 2009.Google Scholar
  26. ECtHR, C.G. and others v. Bulgaria, Application no. 1365/07 from 24 April 2008.Google Scholar
  27. ECtHR, Copland v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 62617/00 from 3 April 2007.Google Scholar
  28. ECtHR, I. v Finland Application no. 20511/03 from 17 July 2008.Google Scholar
  29. ECtHR, K.U. v. Finland, Application no. 2871/02 from 2 December 2008.Google Scholar
  30. ECtHR, Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 26839/05 from 18 May 2010.Google Scholar
  31. ECtHR, L.L. v France Application no. 7508/02 from 10 October 2006.Google Scholar
  32. ECtHR, Leander v. Sweden, Application no. 9248/81 from 26 March 1987.Google Scholar
  33. ECtHR, Liberty and others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 58234/00 from 1 July 2008.Google Scholar
  34. ECtHR, Malone v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 8691/79 from 2 August 1984.Google Scholar
  35. ECtHR, Panteleyenko v. Ukraine, Application no. 11901/02 from 29 June 2006.Google Scholar
  36. ECtHR, Peck v. United Kingdom, Application no. 44647/98 from 28 January 2003.Google Scholar
  37. ECtHR, Rotaru against Romania, Application no. 28341/95 from 4 May 2000.Google Scholar
  38. ECtHR, S. and Marper v the United Kingdom, Application nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04 from 4 December 2008.Google Scholar
  39. ECtHR, Segerstedt-Wiberg and others v. Sweden, Application no. 62332/00 from 6 June 2006.Google Scholar
  40. ECtHR, Silver v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 5947/72 and others, from 25 March 1983.Google Scholar
  41. ECtHR, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 6538/74.Google Scholar
  42. ECtHR, Valenzuela v. Spain, Application no. 27671/95 from 30 July 1998.Google Scholar
  43. ECtHR, Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00 Admissibility Decision from 29 June 2006.Google Scholar
  44. ECtHR, Z. v Finland, Application no. 22009/93, from 25 February 1997.Google Scholar
  45. Edward Hasbrouck Blog, http://www.hasbrouck.org/ (accessed August 25, 2010).
  46. EU-PNR proposal in its latest version, Council doc. 5618/2/09, interinstitutional file 2007/0237 (CNS) from 29 June 2009.Google Scholar
  47. European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion on the draft proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name records (PNR) for law enforcement purposes, OJ 2008, C-110/01.Google Scholar
  48. European Parliament, Resolution of 20 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name records (PNR) for law enforcement purposes, B6-0615/2008.Google Scholar
  49. Joined cases C-317/04 and C-318/04, Parliament v. Council, [2006], ECR I-4721.Google Scholar
  50. Manolea, B. “Implementation of EU Data Retention Directive Unconstitutional.” Computer Law Review International 2 (2010): 49–51.Google Scholar
  51. Mendez, M. “Passenger Name Record Agreement, European Court of Justice.” European Constitutional Law Review 3 (2007): 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Opinion of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for law enforcement purposes, 28 October 2008.Google Scholar
  53. Papakonstantinou, V., and P. De Hert. “The PNR Agreement and Transatlantic anti-terrorism Cooperation: No firm human rights framework on either side of the Atlantic.” Common Market Law Review 46, 3 (2009): 885–919.Google Scholar
  54. Pawlak, P. “Made in USA? The influence of the US on the EU’s data protection regime,” Centre of European Policy Studies, Liberty and Security in Europe, Justice and Home Affairs section, (2009), http://www.ceps.be/book/made-usa-influence-us-eu%E2%80%99s-data-protection-regime (accessed August 25, 2010).
  55. Peers, S. “The Third Pillar acquis after the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force” comment posted on December 1, 2009, http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/86-third-pillar-acquis-post-lisbon.pdf (accessed August 25, 2010).
  56. Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes from 6 November 2007, COM (2007) 654.Google Scholar
  57. Recommendation R (87) 15 of the Committee of Ministers to the Member States regulating the use of personal data in the police sector, adopted 17 September 1987.Google Scholar
  58. Siemen, B. Datenschutz als europäisches Grundrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006.Google Scholar
  59. Simitis, S. “Der EuGH und die Vorratsdatenspeicherung oder die verfehlte Kehrtwende bei der Kompetenzregelung.” Neue Juristische Wochenzeitschrift 25 (2009): 1782–1786.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LuxembourgLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations