Given that the agreement would have repercussions on millions of European citizens, the Group should not doubt the transparency of the discussions on the draft agreement and the authorisation procedures within the competent institutions of the European Union. It regrets that this view does not seem to be shared by all relevant stakeholders. As a general assessment, the group notes (modest) improvements in the draft agreement, but does not see its serious concerns dissipated. CBP will indicate in writing that the requesting authority will take security measures for PNR data comparable to those of CBP to ensure that access is granted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, DUS guidelines and international agreements. 2. A police or judicial authority of a Member State of the European Union or Europol or Eurojust may, within the framework of its mandate, request access to pnr data or relevant analytical information from a PNR which, in a given case, is necessary to detect terrorist and related offences or cross-border crime in the European Union, in accordance with point (b) of Article 4(1), to investigate or prosecute. DHS shall make this information available, subject to the agreements and arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. CONSIDERING that the United States and the European Union are committed to ensuring a high level of protection of personal data in the fight against crime and terrorism and are determined to conclude without delay an agreement on the protection of personal data, which will be widely exchanged in the context of the fight against crime and terrorism, to promote our common goals; In May 2004, the U.S. government negotiated the Passenger Name Record Data Transfer Agreement (aka) in 2004. EU PNR Agreement) – a Safe Harbour transfer agreement with the European Commission.
In particular, the European Commission considered that the level of protection granted to such transfers of PNR data would meet the standard of «relevance» required by the 1995 European Data Directive as long as the data were transmitted and used exclusively for the purposes for which they were collected. These objectives are limited to preventing and combating terrorism and related crimes; other serious crimes, including organised crime, which are transnational; and to evade arrest warrants or detention for these crimes.  The agreement between the US, the EU and PNR required European airlines to provide PNR data to US authorities within 15 minutes of a plane taking off. While this agreement was invalidated by the European Court of Justice on 30 May 2006 due to a lack of legal competence, the European Council worked to revive the content of the agreement before the expiry of the deadline set by the General Court on 30 September 2006.  For many, it was like Groundhog Day. The US and the EU have been arguing relentlessly since 2003 over the same issues (purpose, use, data retention, etc.) and have been forced to resume negotiations. This is how we arrive at the 2011 agreement, signed in November 2011. It protects privacy better than the 2007 agreement and is a success for the EU when it comes to recovering some of the concessions it made in 2007. And yet, some parliamentarians had doubts about the bill and they accumulated a significant, if ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to defeat it.
And this failure ends an era, ten years of disputes are over, and peace pnr will reign – at least for the seven-year duration of the agreement, if the dispute can resume. . . .