Franco Frattini, European Commission Vice-President for Justice, Freedom and Security

Question: Have you as yet got a date for the European Court of Justice case regarding the agreement on Passenger Name Records (PNR) and that agreement comes up to be renewed on an annual basis, I believe.  Will you be renewing it as it stands, given concerns?

Franco Frattini: Now we are exploring at a technical level, a possible way for an agreed solution in view of reviewing PNR agreement. Of course, we are waiting for the decision to be taken by the court and I expect a decision by September. So it will depend on the decision taken by the court for further development or not in PNR area.  My opinion is, anyway, that the US should understand that we must respect the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, particularly regarding rules for processing personal data.  I’m ready to present a paper and then I will present a proposal for protecting, under the third pillar, personal data and in full respect with those European rules I will negotiate with the US.

Question: When are you likely to publish that paper, in September after the court case?

Franco Frattini: I think yes.  My intention is to formally propose to the commission a communication on third pillar data protection in autumn in order to be able to submit the document to the Council by the end of this year, in parallel with a proposal for a law enforcement network under the UK presidency.
 
Question: Another privacy issue that is being discussed in the background, perhaps, is data retention. When we can expect a proposal on this?

Franco Frattini: We are very close.  We are very close to presenting a proposal, we are discussing within the commission and in full agreement with Commissioner Reding I will present, I think, in very few weeks.

Question: By the June 2 council of justice ministers?

Frano Frattini: My hope is to be ready to give ministers of interior the first short information about that.

Question: How will the commission react if the council goes ahead with their current proposal?  Would the commission be willing to support the European Parliament in appealing to the Court of Justice, in terms of there being a problem, or there being widely perceived to be problems, with the legal basis? 

Franco Frattini: I have some hopes that member states will understand that our proposal is correct as concerns the legal basis. Then if there will be, I hope yes, an agreement on the substance. Finally member states will accept, because they will not need to change totally the substance, the draft of the proposal.  There will be, in other words, a possible proposal on the substance by correcting the legal basis.  That is my hope and my presentation will follow that line.  That line is, ‘please agree on the substance rather than continue in splitting on the legal basis’. It’s a compromise proposal, of course.

Question: Are you concerned that a lot of people have expressed a concern, in industry but also in the parliament, that there isn’t enough public debate about such proposals, similar to the biometric proposal that something is coming in without real discussion?

Franco Frattini: Yes.  Sometimes I hear about concerns on the transparency and the publicity of the debate but I’m trying to keep this debate public because I make a lot of statements. I met, many times, the supervisor for data protection, the Article 29 committee, and other relevant actors.

Regarding transparency you should also take into consideration that the matter is extremely technical. It involves many, not juridical aspects but technical ones. So we should be careful because if we are going to explain in public we should explain well. The worst thing is to simply respond ‘yes’. We must no face a public debate with bad arguments. That will increase the sense of confusion in public opinion because there are a lot of interests involved; companies, enterprises on the one hand, police authorities on the other hand. So its is a very, very sensitive matter at technical level.

Question: The commission’s Joint Research Centre has recently commissioned studies on the biometric passports and it came to the conclusion that principles of privacy and data protection have been discarded in this whole debate?  Given that you’ve talked in your action plan about striking the right balance between privacy and security, how do you feel about those kinds of arguments and the fact that EU proposals are garnering such criticisms?

Franco Frattini: It is a very, very sensitive issue. We need technical elements but one point is extremely clear. If we want, and we do want, to fight against terrorism and organised crime we must include biometrics in travel documents and in visa documents. Of course the question is how best to treat personal data. But regarding the inclusion of biometrics in travel documents I think we cannot have doubts, because otherwise we risk undermining the credibility of the European strategy on security. So it’s up to technical bodies to discuss on technical aspects.  I’m very open to possible solutions, to possible results, to being able to balance between the protection of rights and security but the principle of inclusion of biometrics is a principle shared at the European level. No one in the 25 member states has any doubts about that.

Question: It appears in the actual plan that you are talking about the need to have a humane approach, particularly to the question of returning migrants and failed asylum seekers.  Do you think that Italy has flouted this principle recently by expelling so many people from Lampedusa without processing their applications?

Franco Frattini: Well, there was a decision taken two days ago by the court about March expulsions of 13 people. We, of course, fully respect that decision. Now we should consider on one end that Italy is really under very strong pressure. In the Mediterranean Italy is probably the most exposed country. So we should consider that the principle of solidarity is linked to European help for Italy, for Malta, for Spain and other countries really under pressure.

On the other hand, we always repeat to all member states, not only to Italy that humanity and dignity of illegal people is extremely important. That’s why we have sent a second mission to Libya because we need to explore on the ground the condition of repatriated people. In parallel we are providing funds to help, on the ground, refugees, asylum seekers and people entering Europe legally or illegally because we need joint return operations. We will help return operations and actions but under the condition of full respect for fundamental rights. To do that we are improving cooperation with third countries and I’m sure that Italy will be fully involved in that strategy because Italy needs European support, as Malta needs it, as Spain needs it..

Question: As commissioner in charge of justice, freedom and security, would you be angry or disappointed if Italy carries out further expulsions like it did in March or April?

Franco Frattini: We only have the power of asking for information. The responses that I received from the Italian authorities, indicate that they have processed individually the people trying to enter Italy and not collectively. 

We will allow repatriation or return joint operations but, I repeat, in full respect of individual fundamental rights. I hope that all member states will follow these European guidelines that are mandatory.

Question: Why is it, do you think, that Europe is so anti immigration when so many studies show, including many Commission studies, that Europe needs migrants? 

Franco Frattini: I see the same problem as before. We need a balance. We need a balanced approach between full consideration of citizens’ fears and full consideration of solidarity towards migrants.  We, in Brussels, cannot be indifferent regarding preoccupations, regarding concerns, of citizens of member states. If they are afraid because they see that illegal immigrants commit crimes we should take into full consideration those concerns. On the other hand, we should consider immigrants as persons that have rights to be considered in full respect of their dignity. That’s the principle of balance and the approach. 

We cannot ignore that in several European countries this anti-immigrant feeling is growing.  Why is it growing?  Because often they commit crimes and we should take this into consideration in order to prevent a spirit of isolation and frustration of legal migrants.  When I talk about integration in my action plan I try to respond to this question: ‘how can we manage legal immigration?’  We can manage illegal immigration by dividing, the fight against trafficking human beings, the fight against illegal immigration that has to be dealt with and legal immigration. This is a need for Europe because sometimes we need workers, more workers in particular categories.  That is the balance and the approach. We cannot ignore that the problem of illegality still exists and we should face it.

Question: Was Spain’s approach to illegality one that you are sympathetic towards or not?

Franco Frattini: The constitution established that is up to each member state to decide about legalisation but once again we are aware of the importance of solidarity. That is why the Luxembourg EU presidency and I proposed a method of informal consultation before adopting all kinds of measures having an impact on the other member states. Measures like the Spanish legalisation have an impact because we are talking about 700,000 people. Of course Spain cannot ignore that this measure has an impact.  Unanimously, interior ministers agreed on the proposal I made. They requested to have my concrete proposal for implementation and I will submit proposals to the next June council of interior ministers. Because one apsect is the sovereignty principle regarding measures another aspect is solidarity among member states.

Question: You set out, in some length, in the document on Tuesday, ideas for a positive European immigration policy. Do you feel, at the moment, there isn’t a balance that would enable the EU to adopt a legal migration?

Franco Frattini: I cannot say that now there is not a balance in approach.  We need, simply, more Europe.  That means addressing both legal and illegal immigration.

By the end of this year I will present a proposal and that will be the first time that Europe will have on the same table two proposals. The first proposal on addressing illegal immigration and the second on addressing legal immigration.

Question: You mentioned Libya and the missions that you sent to Libya.  Would you be in favour or opposed to having an EU agreement when Libya has not signed up to the Geneva Convention?

Franco Frattini: Our final goal is to have an agreement with Libya because we need an agreement. We need Libya involved in the Barcelona process. We will celebrate ten years of the Barcelona process this year in November, and of course we need Libya on board. But there are political conditions. The most important condition is the full respect, so that’s the signature, of the Geneva Convention on Refugees.  To do that we should encourage, I don’t like the blame and shame method. I do prefer to stimulate, to help, also to provide funds because they respond.

We have thousands and thousands of kilometres of borders in the desert with central African countries. How can we manage without equipment, without police assistance, without training? We should understand that if we want Libya on board, we should help Libya to do that. But by being very firm on principles, and in my opinion there is no possible relativism on fundamental rights.  The Geneva Convention and fundamental rights do not allow relativism at all.

Question: The Regional Protection Programmes.  Do you have any idea where those pilots will be?

Franco Frattini: Yes.  I’m talking about two regional pilot programmes with my colleague and friend Louis Michel and Benita Ferrero-Waldner as well.  My idea is that the two best options could be the Great Lake region (Africa) and the eastern dimension of Europe. 
The Great Lakes region is probably the biggest origin area of illegal immigrants and the eastern dimension of Europe, for example, Ukraine or Georgia or Belarus. We will try to start with two pilot programmes, the first one for Africa and the second one probably for Ukraine.

Question: You mentioned in the plan the fact that you are looking into the whole question of the external dimension of immigration and asylum.  Would you be in favour of linking development aid to migration questions?

Franco Frattini: It’s a very sensitive issue.  My colleague, Louis Michel and I agree on the fact that there is not a juridical link between aid for development, a common strategy on security and the fight against illegal immigration, or more in general, on immigration.  But, of course, we need to stimulate those countries which are in close relations with Europe regarding joint programmes, pilot programmes.  We need to stimulate those countries to agree on a common approach regarding immigration. It is not at all a “do ut des” (I give that you give) base, but it is a common framework of partnership. In this framework, I may increase a common strategy on immigration and one hand and better condition for development on the other hand.

• Previous article
• Next article