Det har utbrutit något slags lågintensivt krig om ett eventuellt nytt datalagringsdirektiv i EU.
Här är en skriftlig fråga från den tyske piratpartistiske ledamoten i Europaparlamentet, Patrick Breyer, till ministerrådets president. Det är en rätt kort skriftväxling, så den återges i sin helhet.
MEP Patrick Breyer (Pp) till ministerrådet:
In view of the ‘Conclusions of the Council of the European Union on Retention of Data for the Purpose of Fighting Crime’:
1. Does the Council accept that data retention legislation which ‘applies even to persons for whom there is no evidence capable of suggesting that their conduct might have a link, even an indirect or remote one, with serious criminal offences’(1) and which ‘does not require there to be any relationship between the data which must be retained and a threat to public security’(2) violates EC law?
2. Does the Council accept that merely exempting persons whose communications are subject to the obligation of professional secrecy does not, for all other persons whose communications data are to be retained, ensure that there is a ‘relationship between the data which must be retained and a threat to public security’ (3) and therefore does not satisfy the principle of proportionality?
3. Does the Council have any evidence that crime clearance rates in Member States with data retention laws in effect are significantly higher than crime clearance rates in Member States with no data retention laws in effect?
As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the June 2019 Council Conclusions on Retention of Data for the Purpose of Fighting Crime summarise the progress made during the reflection process, which was launched in 2017 in order to analyse the requirements of the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular the TELE2 and DRI Judgments, and provide guidance for future work on the definition of possible solutions.
The Council Conclusions stress that the use of data retention and similar investigative measures should be guided by the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in the EU Charter and the principles of purpose limitation, necessity and proportionality.
Furthermore they specify that any legislative reforms at either national or European level should be compliant with the requirements of the EU Charter as interpreted by the Court of Justice. However the Council did not take a position on the issues raised by the Honourable Member. The Council, in accordance with Article 241 of the TFEU, requested the Commission to carry out a study on the issue of data retention.
Goddag yxskaft!
Ministerrådets svar kan enkelt och med bred pensel sammanfattas så här:
- Vi funderar – sedan två år tillbaka – över det där med massövervakning.
- Vi är medvetna om de mänskliga rättigheterna – även när vi våldför oss på dem.
- Eftersom det inte finns några bevis för att datalagring leder till att fler brott klaras upp – så svarar vi inte på frågan. Men vi har diskuterat att tillsätta en utredning.
Man kan notera en viss arrogans i ministerrådets inställning till det där med mänskliga rättigheter, rätten till privatliv och proportionalitet.
Respekten för de grundläggande mänskliga rättigheter som är basen för den demokratiska västerländska rättsstaten borde vara större.
Se även: Ylva Johansson flaggar för ett nytt datalagringsdirektiv i EU »
Lämna ett svar