EU bodies do battle over deal with US on details about air travellers

EU INSTITUTIONS are set for a major legal challenge against each other about an agreement to hand over details of air passengers to the US government - a measure introduced as a key part of the international fight against terrorism.

In a rare power struggle between EU bodies, the European Parliament has begun legal proceedings against the European Commission and European Council to annul the agreement - in the same week that the US was placed on a heightened level of terror alert.

Former MEP Pat Cox decided to refer the issue to the European Court of Justice in one of his last acts as president of the European Parliament. The papers were formally lodged with the Luxembourg-based court in the last few days. MEPs claim legislation that requires airlines flying to the US to transfer passenger data to the US Department of Homeland Security as well as US customs and immigration services is in breach of EU data protection law.

Among the 34 pieces of personal information sought by the US authorities is data on names, credit card numbers, phone numbers and meal preferences of passengers flying to the US. The US government sought this data as a method of identifying potential terrorists in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

However, under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the European Parliament believes the other EU bodies have been in violation of parliamentary prerogatives by their failure to consult the Strasbourg-based body before ratifying the agreement with the US authorities.

Sources in Brussels yesterday said MEPs had been very angry by the decision of the European Council to sign the agreement without waiting for the European Court of Justice to give a legal opinion on its compatibility with the EC Treaty.

Several committees of the European Parliament had recommended such a course of action before any agreement was concluded. However, the European Commission maintains that the data protection measures applied by the US on the information supplied by airlines is adequate.

“The Citizens Rights Committee (of the European Parliament) believed it was highly advisable that such an opinion should be sought before the council took any further steps to ratify the agreement. MEPs feel that several aspects of the agreement are problematic,” said one source.

Among the concerns of MEPs are the purposes for which the data might be used as well as the lack of opportunities for passengers to correct errors in their personal data.

They are also worried about the lack of redress for travellers denied entry to the US based on personal details supplied by airlines and the actual number of US agencies which can access the information.

The European Parliament has also argued that there is no specific EU legislation for using passenger name records for public security purposes as well as the fact that only US citizens are granted the right to data protection within the US.

Mr Cox could not be contacted for comment yesterday.