A summary of the committee’s consideration of amendments is now available.
EP JURI Committee Meeting – 7 September 2017
18. Respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications)
– Consideration of amendments
View related documents and the next stage of the procedure in the Policy Pipeline
The Rapporteur Axel Voss (EPP, DE)
- 470 amendments had been tabled in the Committee;
- his position on the proposal was well known. He described the Commission’s proposal as a “medium-sized catastrophe” because it did not address the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR);
- users would find it incomprehensible why the same sets of data needed to be addressed by two different legislative regimes. It did not promote the data economy;
- he stated that the amendments were varied, and he was curious about the compromises that could be “hammered out”.
- her group did not follow the line of the Rapporteur. The ePrivacy Regulation was necessary to complete the GDPR;
- it was important to protect the private lives of citizens while permitting the functioning and development of services;
- from reading the amendments, it appeared that the other groups also supported the view of the S&D and she hoped that the Rapporteur would take this into consideration.
Max Andersson (Greens/EFA, SE)
- his group supported the proposal and was broadly in agreement with the report in the LIBE Committee;
- he was looking forward to the compromise amendments, and that he was worried about the timetable.
Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD, IT)
- the EU was at vanguard of digital privacy but there was room for improvement;
- she shared the concerns of the Rapporteur on the fact that the proposal referred to texts which were not yet in force;
- the digital environment had specificities and it was technically complex. She thought it was important to have ad hoc measures that prevailed over more general rules;
- her group felt that it was important to extend the scope of the proposal to metadata that was provided by major service providers because there was a wide variety of devices, including devices under the Internet of Things;
- it needed to be ensured that the data did not leave the EU unnecessarily under the rules of the Privacy Shield.
Joëlle Bergeron (EFDD, FR)
- she thought that it was legitimate that the Directive was being updated on the basis of technical advances;
- the Commission’s text went in the right direction, and now it was up to the Parliament to make the necessary adjustments;
- it was not going against the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the GDPR;
- regarding Article 11, she stated that it was important that EU law prevailed over national law except in those cases where it affected the security and defence of Member States;
- third-party cookies did not need to be banned. A proper framework for their use was necessary;
- confidentiality and privacy rules had to be set in a proper framework and users should be able to refuse unsolicited communications.
Source: One Policy Place