Telegraph blames EU, not USA for Flight Chaos

[Guest guest]

EU privacy ruling threatens chaos on flights to US

 

By David Rennie in Brussels and David Millward,

Transport Correspondent

(Filed: 31/05/2006)

 

 

Millions of tourists and business travellers planning

to fly to the United States were left in legal limbo

yesterday after the European Union's highest court

struck down an agreement on sharing the personal

details of passengers with US authorities.

 

Acknowledging the potentially devastating effects of

its ruling, the European Court of Justice gave EU and

American officials until Oct 1 to come up with a new

deal.

 

The Passenger Name Records (PNR) agreement governs 34

pieces of personal information that must be handed by

airlines to the American authorities within 15 minutes

of a plane taking off. It came in as a

counter-terrorist measure demanded by Washington after

September 11.

 

If the EU and US fail to reach a new agreement by

October, national governments will have to strike

their own deals with the US, or all flights from their

airports to American destinations could be grounded.

 

Sources at British Airways, which flies six million

people across the Atlantic a year, said they had been

privately assured by the Government that domestic data

protection laws would not prevent them from handing

over the PNR information.

 

However, countries such as Holland and Italy have

strict privacy laws, opening the way for airlines to

face sanctions if they hand over personal details. But

if they do not hand over the data, they face fines in

the US of about £4,000 per passenger.

 

The PNR agreement was only reached after fierce

debate, as some EU governments and members of the

European Parliament queried whether the Bush

administration could be entrusted to respect EU

concerns about personal privacy if handed sensitive

personal data.

 

Bowing to European demands, US authorities agreed to

store the data for only three and a half years, and

abandoned its demands for data on meal preferences,

which could indicate a passenger's religion.

 

This time, all sides are under astonishing pressure to

swallow pride and forge a new agreement in record

time.

 

Stewart Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at

the US department of homeland security, said: " I am

confident that we will find a resolution that will

keep the data flowing and the planes flying. "

 

The case against the PNR agreement was brought by the

European Parliament, which claimed it infringed the

fundamental rights of citizens.

 

The court did not address these claims, focusing

instead on the European Commission's decision to use

its powers to regulate trade to conclude the PNR

agreement. That decision was wrong, the court said,

because the information ended up in the hands of law

enforcement agencies.

 

The commission is now faced with drafting a new piece

of EU framework legislation using legal powers that

govern police co-operation. Such matters require the

unanimous consent of all 25 EU nations, which is

normally a recipe for years of foot-dragging.

 

The commission said yesterday that it was committed to

finding a new agreement. That was greeted with

criticism from MEPs worried about civil liberties.

 

Graham Watson, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in

the European Parliament, said: " The response to 9/11

has been costly both to the taxpayer and to individual

freedoms. It has made us little, if any, safer. "

 

In Britain, airlines could run the risk of being sued

by passengers who objects to the unauthorised

disclosure of their data, said Richard Jones, a lawyer

with Clifford Chance.

 

Also, depending on how the British courts interpret

the ruling, the EU information commissioner could

serve an order instructing the airlines to stop

passing information on to the Americans.

 

6 April 2006: Airline passengers face lie detector

tests

8 December 2005: Traveller shot dead by air marshals

after bomb threat

 

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the

copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be

reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full

copyright statement see Copyright