EU Policy
Commission opposes framework decision on data retention
The European Commission has made it clear to all the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs in the EU that there is no legal basis for a framework decision on mandatory data retention in the third pillar. The draft framework decision on data retention was introduced in April 2004 by the governments of France, the UK, Ireland and Sweden in an attempt to bypass the Commission, the European Parliament and even national parliaments. In the third pillar, the ministers may agree unanimously on a decision to harmonise legislation on police and justice matters, without any co-decision right for the European Parliament and a very limited margin for national parliaments to amend such a decision. In the proposal for data retention this margin is clearly defined. National parliaments may choose a different timeframe for the retention, but only if they review their decision annually and report to the Commission why they are still differing.
European countries promise collaboration against spam
The European Commission has issued a press release announcing stronger collaboration between anti-spam enforcement authorities in Europe. "Anti-spam enforcement authorities in 13 European countries have agreed to share information and pursue complaints across borders in a pan-European drive to combat spam. They will co-operate in investigating complaints about cross-border spam from anywhere within the EU, so as to make it easier to identify and prosecute spammers anywhere in Europe."
There are still very few public hotlines in Europe where internet users can report spam. These hotlines usually only accept complaints about unsolicited e-mail originating in their own country. In that light, the promise of closer collaboration between European authorities seems a bit futile, if the final recipients of the mail, the Internet users, are not involved.
Microsoft excludes free software from EU ruling
The Free Software Foundation Europe says Microsoft is blocking Linux, Samba and other major open source projects from taking part in a protocol licensing scheme mandated by the European Commission's antitrust ruling.
If developers want to build the protocols into their products, they must agree not to distribute that product in source-code form, or to subject it to licenses that require source-code disclosure, a formula that excludes many open source licenses.
The European Commission gave Microsoft a record fine of 497 million euro after a five-year investigation by the Competition Commissioner into Microsoft's business practice. The Commission ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without a bundled media player and to share more technical information with server rivals.
EP committee wants new software patents proposal
On 2 February 2005 the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament (JURI) voted with an overwhelming majority (19-2) to get rid of the current software patent proposal and start all over again with a new proposal. Only 1 MEP voted against the initiative, and 1 MEP was absent.
The former French prime minister Michel Rocard gave an impressive speech in the JURI committee. With all respect for the new Commissioner for the internal market, Charlie McCreevy, he said he and other MEPs felt "mustard was coming through their noses". A first 'inelegance' Rocard noted was the fact that all the EP amendments in the first reading of the proposal had been ignored by Commission and Council. Secondly, the ministers of Germany and The Netherlands had ignored their own parliaments. Thirdly Rocard opposed the repeated attempts to adopt the proposal in the wrong forum of ministers, twice even at a Fishery Council. Rocard concluded his speech by explaining once more why the word 'technical' in the Council proposal couldn't help anybody distinguish between what is patentable and what is not.
Rapporteur demands co-decision data retention
The rapporteur from the European Parliament on telecommunication data retention, Alexander Alvaro, has presented his first views on the draft framework decision in a turbulent meeting from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). Alvaro proposed on 1 February 2005 to split the proposal in two, and give the European Parliament full co-decision power on the decision where it affects the internal market, on the costs and the exact list of data. Currently, the European Parliament only has a 'consultation' right on this issue. It cannot veto or amend the proposed decision, since it is considered third pillar legislation (police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters). Only the ministers from the EU member states can decide about these matters, if they reach unanimity. Alvaro doubts whether the proposal can ever meet the demands of proportionality when it comes to the Internet. He finds the proposal lacks proportionality, is in possible violation of the assumption of innocence, and contrary to the spirit of Article 15 of the E-Privacy Directive of 2002, which only allows for specific and temporary legal measures by member states, not for a harmonising decision. Concluding, he demanded a maximum term of 6 months, a limitation to data already processed by companies for business purposes and rules for general cost reimbursement.
EU consultation calls for social impact studies on nanotech
The European Commission puts nanotechnology high on the political agenda with its Communication 'Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology'. The communication has been discussed at the political level in the European Council under the Irish and Dutch presidencies during the year 2004, and an on-line open consultation on the communication was held between August and October 2004 by Nanoforum, the EU sponsored thematic network on nanotechnology. The Nanoforum received some 750 responses to the consultation. Half of the respondents came from the research community.
The consultation concludes that nanotechnology will have a strong impact on European industry and its citizens within only ten years from now. Nanotechnology will have its strongest impact on chemistry and materials,
Data Retention: Parliament Rapporteur doubts legal foundation
The European Parliament's rapporteur on the retention of traffic data resulting from all kinds of electronic communications, Alexander Alvaro (Liberal, Germany) has asked the Parliament's legal service to look into the legal foundation for this report. His doubts are founded on the fact that the report contains obligations addressed to civil parties, which is a strong indication that it ought to be in co-decision. As Mr. Alvaro told EDRI-gram, he proposes to split the draft into two separate reports. The first part would contain the law-enforcement side of data retention and remain in the consultation procedure. The other part, dealing with the industry's obligations, would have to be in the co-decision procedure. Mr. Alvaro also considers going to the European Court of Justice to get a
Poland blocks software patents once more
Poland did it again. For the second time they blocked the attempt to silently adopt EU Council's agreement on software patents, this time in the Fisheries Council of 24 January 2005. The government of Poland had already requested the item to be deleted from the agenda of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 21 December 2004.
On the Friday preceding the Fishery minister's meeting the Polish European Committee of the Council of Ministers, presumedly acting on the initiative of the country's Ministry for Science and Technology, requested not to include the Directive on the Patentability of computer-implemented inventions on the agenda of that Council meeting, because "the work on the final position of Poland on the issue has not yet been completed". A statement published on the Polish Office of the Committee for European
EU plans database of visa applicants' biometrics
The EU Commission plans to store biometric data taken from visa applicants in the planned Visa Information System (VIS). This was decided as part of a proposed regulation, which was already due in late 2004, but was delayed until 7 January 2005. The delay seems to be due to technical problems with stacking multiple RFIDs on documents. The upcoming Luxembourg Presidency of the Council wrote a note on these technical difficulties on 22 December 2004.
The note mentions in particular collision problems arising when several RFID tags would be included in one passport. As a possible solution concerning visas, the note proposes to store the biometric data only in the VIS and not on an RFID sticker, and says a majority of EU member states delegations seems to be in favour of this second solution. Concerning residence permits, the Luxembourg Presidency proposes to issue separate cards, with the biometric data on an RFID chip, as is currently planned also for EU citizens' travel documents. This solution is, however, opposed by Germany, where residence permits are already being issued in the form of stickers.
Commission approves contracts for international data transfers
The European Commission has approved of a new set of standard contractual clauses for international data transfers proposed by seven international business associations. The contracts are said to offer an adequate level of data protection under the EU's data protection laws. Companies can use the clauses to provide a legal basis for transfers to data controllers outside of Europe as from 1 April 2005. The new clauses will be added to those already available under the Commission's June 2001 decision (IP/01/851).
Companies believe that some of the new clauses, such as those on litigation, allocation of responsibilities or auditing requirements, are more business-friendly. According to the Commission the new clauses provide for a similar level of data protection as those of 2001 and prevent abuses, the data protection authorities are given more powers to intervene and impose sanctions where necessary. The implementation of this new set of clauses will be reviewed in 2008.