5.12.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/1

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Council Decision concerning the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA

(2008/C 310/01)

THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular its Article 286,

Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular its Article 8,

Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, and in particular its Article 41,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

I. INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS

1.	On 27 February 2008, the Official Journal published the Initiative of 14 Member States with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA (1).

The EDPS was not asked for advice on this initiative. Therefore he issues this opinion on his own initiative, in the same way as he issued opinions on the initiative for a Council Decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (‘Prüm-Treaty’) and on the initiative for a Council Decision on the implementation of the former Council Decision (2). According to the EDPS, the present opinion should be mentioned in the preamble of the Council Decision, in the same way as his opinion is mentioned in a number of legal instruments adopted on the basis of a proposal by the Commission.

Although there is no legal obligation for a Member State or a group of Member States that take the initiative for a legislative measure under Title VI of the EU Treaty to ask the EDPS for advice, the applicable rules do not preclude the request for such an advice either. The EDPS regrets that the Member States did not ask for his advice in the present case, since a significant part of the initiative deals with the — conditions for — processing of personal data.

Likewise, he regrets the absence of an Impact Assessment accompanying the initiative (3). This is a necessary element enhancing the transparency and more in general the quality of the legislative process. For the citizens of the European Union, it is not easy to understand why this element is a normal part of the legislative process when the Commission issues proposals, but not if Member States take the initiative.

In the present case, the accompanying documents could have given a justification of the urgency of the amendment of Decision 2002/187/JHA. In this context one has to underline that the initiative has been taken, with a view to adopting a legal instrument just before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty will lead to a change of the status of Eurojust, inter alia due to the fact that the pillar structure of the EU Treaty will be abolished.

As a final introductory observation, the EDPS reminds that the 14 Member States have presented a second and closely linked initiative, with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the European Judicial Network (4). The EDPS will not issue an opinion on the latter initiative since it has less importance from the perspective of protection of personal data. The information disseminated within the European Judicial Network — as proposed under Article 8 of that initiative — does normally not focus on personal data.

II. GENERAL POINTS

The initiative in its context

According to its recitals, the initiative aims at further enhancing the operational effectiveness of Eurojust. This aim fits within a context in which the further development of Eurojust is seen as a logical step forward for this organisation. In the Hague Programme of November 2004 (5), the European Council has already asked the Commission to consider the further development of Eurojust. In October 2007, the Commission presented a Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in the European Union (6). This Communication concludes that amending the Eurojust Decision is needed to enable Eurojust to develop its potential for cooperation and to further establish itself as a vital player in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in Europe.

The EDPS also recalls that Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (Lisbon Treaty) will extend the legal basis for Eurojust, in comparison to the present basis in Article 31(2) of the EU Treaty. Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union mentions inter alia the initiation of criminal investigations. Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lays down that the Council may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust.

The Communication notes that the operational record of Eurojust is positive. The number of cases that Eurojust dealt with is significantly increasing. However it also notes that this development requires clarification and reinforcement of the powers of the national members of Eurojust and of the College. The Communication substantiates the shortcomings of the present framework, which does not guarantee sufficient authority for the national members and the College.

10.	The EDPS understands the need for improving the legal framework of Eurojust, in order to make it more effective. It is a developing organisation. Its role in criminal investigations and prosecutions is growing and should grow, in order to establish Eurojust as an important player in this area.

The information position of Eurojust

11.

The Communication underlines that access to information is fundamental. It is in this perspective logical that a substantial number of the proposed amendments in the initiative relate to the information position (7) of Eurojust. This opinion of the EDPS will in particular focus on this issue, since it involves the collection, storage and exchange of personal data. It is in this context also important that the second part of the Communication focuses on the relations between Eurojust and other players in the judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Improvement of these relations is also paramount in the Initiative and will be an important element of this opinion.

12.

The EDPS notes that the initiative contains provisions of particular interest in relation to the collection, storage and exchange of personal data:

—	Article 9(4) allows the national member of Eurojust full access to a number of registers,

—	Article 9a defines the full powers of the national member including his information position,

—	according to Article 12(5) the Eurojust national coordination system shall be connected to the Case Management System of Eurojust,

—	the new Article 13a deals with the information provided by Eurojust to national authorities,

—	the exhaustive lists relating to data processing in Article 15 will be replaced by open lists. New types of information are added in Article 15(1)(l) and the concept of a Case Management System is added,

—	according to Article 26(1a), the College of Eurojust may open and participate in a Europol Analysis Work File. Article 26(2) further facilitates the relations with the European Judicial Network, Frontex and other players,

—	Article 27a deals with requests for judicial cooperation from third States.

13.

These provisions extend the possibilities for the collection, storage and exchange of personal data and therefore entail additional risks for the protection of personal data. Of course, risks can not always be avoided since the applicable rules must allow that Eurojust can perform its operational activities in an effective way. However, when establishing new provisions that extend the possibilities for data processing the European legislator should strike a good balance between the different public interests involved, taking into account the principle of proportionality.

14.

This requires in any event that those rules are established on the basis of an analysis of the shortcomings of the existing rules and the expected effectiveness of the new provisions. It is also for this reason regrettable that the initiative is not accompanied by documents providing for such analysis, notwithstanding the fact that the Communication gives much useful information. For example, no evidence is given for the need to replace the exhaustive lists of Article 15 by open lists.

The context of national criminal law

15.

The demand for evidence is even more predominant in the light of the complex reality in which Eurojust has to operate. At the present stage of European integration criminal investigations and prosecutions fall within the domain of national law. National laws in this area are based on long standing legal traditions and show a wide variety. The task of Eurojust is to facilitate the optimal coordination of action for investigations and prosecutions covering the territory of more than one Member State with full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms (8).

16.	In addition, Decision 2002/187/JHA leaves much discretion to national governments in the way they give effect to their tasks relating to Eurojust, for instance in the position they give to the national members.

17.

The consequences of this reality are varied. In the first place, there seem to be good reasons to limit the discretion of the Member States in order to ensure that Eurojust can function effectively. The proposed Article 2(2) enhances the minimum level of resources that Member States should give to the national members. Also the new Article 9a aims at strengthening the position of the national members. Member States must confer certain powers to them.

18.

In the second place, it has to be taken into account that Eurojust exchanges information within widely varying legal systems, with different legal (and constitutional) requirements about the use of and access to this information. These requirements should not be used to limit the powers of Eurojust to collect, store and exchange information, nor to keep them limited, but in such a complex environment all potential consequences should be well assessed and considered beforehand.

The Lisbon Treaty and the urgency of the changes: are changes needed now?

19.

The Lisbon Treaty has three important consequences which relate to this initiative:

(a)	Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union extends the functions of Eurojust, whereas Article 86 even foresees a more fundamental change of function, namely the development into a European Public Prosecutor's Office (see also point 8 of this opinion);

(b)

the legislative framework for Eurojust must be adopted by the European Parliament and Council, within the ordinary legislative procedure with Qualified Majority Voting within Council. The infringement procedure of Article 228 EC (under the Lisbon Treaty: Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) will apply to the implementation in the Member States;

(c)

as a consequence of the abolishment of the pillar-structure, Eurojust will become a body of the European Union to which all the provisions having general application of Title II of the of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will apply, such as for instance the provisions on transparency and on data protection.

20.	The question arises whether it would not be better to wait for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, before adopting the amendment to the legislative framework for Eurojust as presented in the initiative.

21.

According to the EDPS, there are some convincing arguments in favour of an approach of waiting for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Those arguments are the following:

(a)	it allows the full inclusion of the tasks mentioned in Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (9);

(b)	it recognises the role of the European Parliament, as co-legislator and as stakeholder in the evaluation of Eurojust's activities (10);

(c)

it allows the control by the Commission and the Court of Justice on the implementation in the Member States, and prevents the new provisions from profiting from the exemptions of Title VII of Protocol No 36 of the Lisbon Treaty, that provide that the limited competences of the Court of Justice shall not change in respect of acts adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Reform Treaty, until such acts are amended or 5 years have passed;

(d)	it allows considering the consequences of the abolishment of the pillar structure which might in the area of data protection have as a consequence that Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (11) could be applicable to Eurojust.

III. PROVISIONS ON THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA

The general framework

22.

Article 14 of Decision 2002/187/JHA lays down that Eurojust may, within the framework of its competence and in order to carry out its tasks, process personal data. This Article furthermore contains a reference to Council of Europe Convention No 108 (12), includes some general principles of data protection and provides that Eurojust shall establish an index of data relating to investigations and may establish temporary work files which also contain personal data.

23.

The initiative does not propose to replace the reference to Convention No 108 by a reference to the Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (13), nor does it in any other way refer to this Council Framework Decision (14). For reasons of consistency, the EDPS recommends adding such a reference to Article 14 of Decision 2002/187/JHA. Such reference is all the more important because Eurojust exchanges personal data with national authorities that will be bound by the Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data, after its entry into force in the Member States.

The Case Management System

24.

The initiative proposes replacing the reference to the ‘index’ by a reference to a ‘Case Management System containing an index’. The EDPS supports this change, since it better reflects the practice within Eurojust. It clarifies that the provisions on — the restrictions on — the processing of personal data apply to the ‘Case Management System’ as such and not only to the index.

25.

The initiative proposes replacing the limited lists of personal data that may be processed under Article 15(1) and (2) by similar lists, but with an open nature. The words ‘only’ will be deleted and in Article 15(1), the word ‘such as’ is added. Apart from a small inconsistency in the initiative (why only add ‘such as’ in Article 15(1)?), in the opinion of the EDPS this modification should not be adopted in Union law. The modification changes the nature of the list with a negative effect for data protection and for legal certainty, without an adequate underlying reason (15).

26.

The EDPS does not understand why this modification is needed, in particular since the lists of data are already quite extensive. If a specific category of data is lacking it would be better to include this category in the Decision itself. The present initiative is a good opportunity to do so, as is shown by the proposed addition of a category (l) to Article 15(1).

Addition of a category of data

27.

This addition concerns telephone numbers, vehicle registration data, phone and e-mail traffic related data, DNA records and photographs, all in relation to persons who are suspect of a criminal investigation or prosecution for certain types of crime. The EDPS understands the need for processing such data, but raises some specific points that need clarification:

(a)

the notion of DNA records is not clear. It is essential that the concept of DNA records will be clearly defined and that a difference is made between DNA profiles and DNA data that can provide information on genetic characteristics and/or the health status of a person. In the view of the EDPS, the processing by Eurojust could be limited to DNA profiles (16);

(b)

as to phone and e-mail traffic related data, it is not fully clear which data are included and which not. Especially as far as e-mail is concerned, the difference between traffic data and content data is not obvious. This problem is recognised in the context of the Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC (17) and in the discussion on the implementation of this directive. Article 5(2) of the Directive states: ‘No data revealing the content of the communication may be retained pursuant to this Directive’. The EDPS recommends adding a similar clarification to Article 15 of the Council Decision;

(c)

photographs can reveal sensitive information of the suspect himself (or herself), but also of others such as the witnesses or victims meant in Article 15(2). In the view of the EDPS, it should be ensured that the processing of photographs is surrounded by similar procedural safeguards as included in Article 15(4). Article 15 should be amended in that sense.

IV. RELATIONS WITH EXTERNAL PARTNERS

28.	According to the seventh Recital of the Initiative it is also necessary to strengthen Eurojust's capacity to work with external partners, such as Europol, OLAF and Frontex, as well as authorities of third countries.

29.

Furthermore, Article 26 contains some new provisions on the relations and close cooperation with other partners such as the European Judicial Network, the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen), Interpol and the World Customs Organisation. It follows from the text of the Initiative that this cooperation may in all cases include the exchange of personal data. This leads to the following observations:

(a)	as far as the European Judicial Network is concerned, this Initiative as well as the Initiative for a Council Decision on the European Judicial Network includes precise rules on the cooperation which is much welcomed;

(b)	SitCen is not an independent organisation but an entity within Council without a legal personality. It should be further considered how appropriate relations with SitCen, including necessary safeguards for data protection, should be established;

(c)

as to Interpol, the EDPS understands that the exchange of information with Eurojust will be necessary in specific cases. The text of the Initiative can be supported, but it would have been even better if an agreement between the two bodies, as far as it relates to the processing of personal data, would be subject to approval of the Joint Supervisory Body;

(d)

finally, the EDPS is opposed to the exchange of personal data between Eurojust and the World Customs Organisation since there does not seem to be any clear need for such exchange. He suggests deleting Article 26(10) from the Initiative or at least ensuring in the text that the agreement will not concern the exchange of personal data.

Cooperation with Europol

30.

As to the cooperation with Europol, the Initiative contains several new elements, which mainly relate to the position of Eurojust vis-à-vis Europol's Analysis Work Files (18). Article 9a(1)(c), as proposed, gives national members of Eurojust powers to perform tasks in relation to the Europol Analysis Work File. The proposed Article 26(a)(1a) is of particular importance since it lays down that Member States shall ensure that the College may actually be able to open such an Analysis Work File and that it may participate in its functioning. This proposal is of a fundamentally new nature since it ends a situation in which the legal frameworks of Europol and Eurojust keep the two bodies fully separated. They cooperate, for instance on the basis of a mutual agreement, but do not have direct access to each other's systems.

31.

The proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol) does not contain a similar provision to Article 26(a)(1a) allowing for the access and participation of Eurojust to Europol's Analysis Work Files (19). To the contrary, Article 14 of that proposal contains strict limitations on the participation and analysis of these Work Files. Article 14(2) provides that only analysts shall be authorised to enter data into the file concerned and modify such data and that all participants of the analysis group may retrieve data from the file.

32.

This leads to two opposing legal obligations. On the one hand, Europol should restrict the participation and analysis of these Work Files to analysts/participants of an analysis group. On the other hand, Member States are obliged under Union law to allow opening of and participation to the Files by Eurojust. It is not evident which one of these obligations would prevail. For reasons of legal certainty it is necessary that the Council amends one of the two legal instruments before final adoption. Both instruments should be compatible with each other.

33.

In this perspective, there is also a fundamental question that needs to be answered. Is it necessary for the College of Eurojust to actively participate in the work of Europol, or would it be sufficient if Eurojust requests Europol to open an Analysis Work File and/or receives information from Europol on request, as is the present situation under the agreement between the two bodies?

34.

In the view of the EDPS, under the present circumstances and in the absence of a clear and public motivation, one should consider whether it would not be enough to continue within the present arrangements, provided that:

(a)	this will not prejudice the information position of the national members of Eurojust and of the College;

(b)	the structural links between the two bodies are strong enough to ensure cooperation and to avoid double work (20).

Such a solution would also favour the interest of data protection. The responsibilities of Europol and Eurojust as to the processing of personal data (who will be processor? who will be controller?) will stay clearly distinguished, which is also useful in the light of different systems of supervision on the data processing, with different Joint Supervisory Bodies, the Joint Supervisory Body of Eurojust being composed of judges (21).

Cooperation with authorities of third countries

35.

This also leads to the cooperation with authorities of third countries. The already existing arrangements under Article 27 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA will be completed by an Article on Liaison Magistrates seconded to third States (Article 26a) and by an Article on requests for judicial cooperation from third States (Article 27a).

36.

The EDPS approves of these new provisions, but asks for specific attention for the level of data protection in third States which is dealt with under Article 27(4) of Decision 2002/187/JHA. The EDPS recommends using the present modification of the Council Decision, that further extends the scope of exchanges with third States, for laying down in the Council Decision a procedure for the assessment of adequacy. This assessment should be made by the College of Eurojust, with approval of the Joint Supervisory Body.

V. SUPERVISION

37.

Decision 2002/187/JHA includes extensive provisions in order to ensure compliance with the data protection requirements applicable to Eurojust. Article 17 deals with the Data Protection Officer within Eurojust, whereas Article 23 establishes a Joint Supervisory Body that shall monitor the activities of Eurojust collectively.

38.

The initiative does not propose fundamental changes to these provisions which seem to function well. Only one small addition is proposed as regards Article 23(10) which states that the secretariat of the Supervisory Body may rely upon the expertise of the secretariat established by the Council Decision 2000/641/JHA (22).

39.

The EDPS welcomes this addition which could foster the consistency of the supervision of data protection within the area of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (present third pillar). Using the experiences with other EU bodies and large scale information systems could not have any other effect than further improving the quality of the protection.

Staff data

40.

Another issue of consistency that deserves attention is the following. Article 38 of the proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol) (23) deals with the Staff of Europol. Article 38(1) brings the Director, the Deputy Directors and the Staff of Europol within the scope of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities (and similar rules). At the same time, Article 38(5a) provides that Europol shall apply the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 to the processing of personal data relating to Europol staff. This includes monitoring of the application of this Regulation by the EDPS.

41.

The EDPS recommends that the Council take the same approach in relation to Eurojust and adds a similar provision on the processing of personal data of Europol Staff. An additional reason for this approach is that it is not at all clear whether the Joint Supervisory Body is competent to monitor the processing of personal data of Europol Staff. Indeed, Article 23(1) of Decision 2002/187/JHA specifically refers to the monitoring of the Eurojust activities referred to in Articles 14 to 22 of the Decision, which does not necessarily include data of the administration of Eurojust such as Staff data.

42.

Such an approach is all the more useful, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty leading to the abolishment of the pillar structure could possibly bring Eurojust within the scope of application of the Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, and in any event will bring it within the scope of Article 16(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union obliging the Union legislator to establish rules on the processing of personal data by all EU bodies.

Consultation of the Joint Supervisory Body

43.

Finally, the Initiative recognises the advisory role of the Joint Supervisory Body. Several decisions can only be taken after the consultation of the Joint Supervisory Body. This recognition must be welcomed. At some points this role could even be strengthened by obliging the College of Eurojust not only to consult the Joint Supervisory Body, but also to follow its advice (see points 29 and 36 above).

VI. CONCLUSION

On procedure

44.	The EDPS regrets that the Member States did not ask for his advice, since a significant part of the initiative deals with the — conditions for — processing of personal data by Eurojust.

On the absence of an Impact Assessment

45.

The initiative should have been accompanied not only by an Explanatory Memorandum, but also by an Impact Assessment, which are both necessary elements enhancing the transparency and more in general the quality of the legislative process. These documents could have given a justification of the urgency of the amendment of Decision 2002/187/JHA.

The need for improving the legal framework of Eurojust

46.

The EDPS understands the need for improving the legal framework of Eurojust, in order to make it more effective. It is a developing organisation. He notes that:

(a)	the amendments extend the possibilities for the processing of personal data and therefore entail additional risks for the protection of personal data;

(b)	Eurojust exchanges information within widely varying legal systems, with different legal (and constitutional) requirements about the use of and access to this information.

Also for these reasons, new rules must be established on the basis of an analysis of the shortcomings of the existing rules and the expected effectiveness of the new provisions.

The Lisbon Treaty

47.

The opinion mentions four arguments in favour of waiting for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty:

(a)	it allows the full inclusion of the tasks mentioned in Article 85 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

(b)	it recognises the role of the European Parliament, as co-legislator and as stakeholder in the evaluation of Eurojust's activities;

(c)	it allows the control by the Commission and the Court of Justice on the implementation in the Member States, and prevents the new provisions from profiting from the exemptions of Title VII of Protocol No 36 of the Lisbon Treaty;

(d)	it allows considering the consequences of the abolishment of the pillar structure which might have as a consequence that Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 could be applicable to Eurojust.

On the provisions on the processing of personal data

48.

A reference should be made to the Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The lists of personal data that may be processed under Article 15(1) and (2) should remain closed lists. Clarifications are needed as to the new data elements that are added in Article 15(1)(l).

On the relations with external partners

49.	The EDPS is opposed to the exchange of personal data between Eurojust and the World Customs Organisation.

50.

As to the relation with Europol, it should be considered to continue within the present arrangements, provided that:

(a)	this will not prejudice the information position of the national members of Eurojust and of the College;

(b)	the structural links between the two bodies are strong enough to ensure cooperation and to avoid double work.

51.	As to the cooperation with authorities of third countries, it is recommended to use the present modification of the Council Decision, that further extends the scope of exchanges with third States, for laying down in the Council Decision a procedure for the assessment of adequacy.

On supervision

52.	The EDPS welcomes the addition proposed in Article 23(10) which states that the secretariat of the Supervisory Body may rely upon the expertise of the secretariat established by the Decision 2000/641/JHA.

53.

The EDPS recommends including a provision similar to Article 38(5a) of the proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol) in order to establish that the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 shall apply to the processing of personal data relating to Eurojust staff.

54.	The provisions on the advisory role of the Joint Supervisory Body are welcomed and could at some points even be strengthened.

Done at Brussels, 25 April 2008.

Peter HUSTINX

European Data Protection Supervisor

(1) OJ C 54, 27.2.2008, p. 4.

(2) Opinion of 4 April 2007 on the initiative of 15 Member States with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ C 169, 21.7.2007, p. 2) and Opinion of 19 December 2007 on the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the implementation of Decision 2007/…/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ C 89, 10.4.2008, p. 1).

(3) An Explanatory Memorandum (not published in the Official Journal, but available on the public register of the Council) explains the initiative. However, it does not solve the lack of transparency (etc.) as addressed in this Opinion.

(4) OJ C 54, 27.2.2008, p. 14.

(5) OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1.

(6) Communication of 23 October 2007, COM(2007) 644 final. Further: the Communication.

(7) The term ‘information position’ refers to the possibilities of Eurojust and its members to gather information.

(8) See the second recital of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime.

(9) Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is less relevant in this context, since it will not necessarily become operational immediately after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

(10) See the last sentence of Article 85(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(11) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

(12) Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of the Council of Europe, 28 January 1981.

(13) The last public version of the proposal for a Council Framework Decision dates from 11 December 2007 and is available on the public register of the Council.

(14) Unfortunately, the proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol) (see point 31 of this opinion) does not contain such a reference either.

(15) The EDPS is aware that also within the Working group of Council this issue is being discussed, with as possible result keeping the closed nature of the list. Such a result would of course be welcomed.

(16) See in the same sense earlier opinions of the EDPS, such as the Opinion on the Initiative of 15 Member States, with a view to adopting a Council Decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (Prüm), points 47-48.

(17) Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 54).

(18) The Analysis Work Files are described in Articles 14 and 16 of the proposal mentioned in point 31 of this opinion. Article 26 of the Initiative uses the term Analytical Work Files.

(19) The EDPS issued an opinion on the proposal on 16 February 2007 (OJ C 255, 27.10.2007, p. 13). The latest version of the proposal dated 10 April 2008 is available on the public register of the Council.

(20) See in this respect also the discussion paper of the Counter Terrorism Coordinator of November 2007 (Council Doc. 15448/07).

(21) Article 23 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA.

(22) Council Decision of 17 October 2000 establishing a secretariat for the Joint Supervisory data protection bodies set up by the Convention of the Establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), the Convention on the use of Information Technology for Customs purposes and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement on the global abolition of checks at the common borders (Schengen Convention) (OJ L 271, 24.10.2000, p. 1).

(23) Latest text, see footnote 19.

5.12.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/9

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety

(2008/C 310/02)

THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular its Article 286,

Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular its Article 8,

Having regard to the request for an opinion in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 received on 19 March 2008 from the European Commission,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

I. INTRODUCTION

Consultation of the EDPS

1.	The Proposal for a Directive facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety (hereinafter ‘the proposal’) was sent by the Commission to the EDPS for consultation on 19 March 2008, in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001/EC (1).

Prior to the adoption of the proposal, the Commission informally consulted the EDPS on the draft proposal, which the EDPS welcomed as it gave him an opportunity to make some suggestions on the draft proposal prior to its adoption by the Commission. The EDPS is glad to see that a significant part of his suggestions have been reflected in the proposal.

The proposal in its context

The proposal constitutes a measure taken in the global objective of reducing fatalities, injuries and material damage resulting from traffic accidents, which constitutes a major goal of the EU road safety policy. In this context, the proposal intends to establish a system to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of sanctions for specified road traffic offences. It has indeed been noted that a substantive number of traffic offences are committed and remain unsanctioned when they take place in a country different from the country of residence of the offender.

4.	In order to contribute to a non discriminatory and more effective enforcement towards traffic offenders, the proposal foresees the establishment of a system of cross-border exchange of information between Member States.

5.	Since it provides for the exchange of personal data of suspected offenders, the proposal has direct data protection implications.

Focus of the opinion

The opinion of the EDPS will analyse the legitimacy and the necessity of the measures in Chapter II. The quality of data collected, in relation with the purpose, will be addressed in Chapter III. Chapter IV will focus on the rights of the data subjects, and the conditions to exercise them. Finally, the conditions for transfer of data through an electronic network and its security aspects will be analysed.

II. LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY OF THE MEASURES

Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of personal data (2) foresees, as one of its main principles, that data must be collected and processed for a specified, explicit and legitimate purpose. Besides, processing must be necessary for that purpose (3). The legitimacy of the purpose can be evaluated against the criteria given by Article 7(e)-(f) of the Directive, i.e. in particular the performance of a public interest task or the legitimate interests pursued by the controller.

It is not questionable that reducing the number of road fatalities is a legitimate purpose that could qualify as a public interest task. The question is rather whether the measures envisaged constitute an appropriate tool with regard to this objective of reducing road fatalities. In other words, does the proposal include concrete elements establishing the necessity of such an exchange of information system, considering the impact it will have on the privacy of persons concerned.

The explanatory memorandum states (4) that the existing policy — the Commission Recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety of 21 October 2003 (5) — would be insufficient to cut by half the number of fatalities (6). This statement is based on the increase in the number of deaths since 2004, and on statistics on the proportion of non-resident drivers in speeding offences. It appears that non-resident drivers would be more involved in speeding offences than resident drivers (7).

10.	The statistics mentioned in the impact assessment also indicate a link between the number of controls and the number of casualties, leading to the conclusion that enforcement appears effective as an essential tool to reduce the number of road fatalities (8).

11.	The EDPS also notes that this measure taken at community level is without prejudice — and even complementary — to measures taken at national level in order to improve enforcement in countries where this is identified as a priority.

12.	The EDPS is satisfied that the elements given in the explanatory memorandum and in the preamble of the proposal are sufficiently detailed and founded to support the legitimacy of the proposal and the necessity of the foreseen exchange of data.

III. QUALITY OF DATA PROCESSED

13.	According to Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 95/46/EC, personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed.

14.	The scope of the proposal is limited to specific serious infringements that are considered as the main cause of fatal accidents, i.e. speeding, non-use of seat belt, drink driving and red traffic light running.

15.

Three of these offences (speeding, red traffic light running and non-use of seat belt) can be detected and further processed in an automatic way or without direct contact with the driver, which renders necessary at a later stage the identification of the data subject through cross border exchange of information. With regard to drink driving, detection of the offence must happen in the presence of enforcement authorities, who can in principle collect directly the identity of the offenders. The reason why cross-border exchange of information is nevertheless necessary in that case is further explained in the preamble of the Directive: in order to enable the follow-up of offences, verification of the vehicle registration details may be necessary even in case where the vehicle has been stopped, which is notably the case for drink driving.

16.	The EDPS is satisfied with the limitation of exchange of information to the four infringements mentioned, taking into account their proportion in the total amount of fatal accidents and the necessity to obtain further identification information in an enforcement perspective.

17.	The EDPS also approves the fact that the list of offences is exhaustive, and that any addition of other offences to this list can only happen as a consequence of further monitoring by the Commission, and through a revision of the Directive. This is in line with legal certainty requirements.

IV. RIGHTS OF THE DATA SUBJECT

18.	Rights to information, access and correction of personal data are foreseen in the proposal, especially in Article 7. The way data subjects will be informed about their rights will depend on the format of the offence notification.

19.	It is therefore important that the offence notification mentioned in Article 5 and developed in Annex 2 comprises all relevant information for the data subject, in a language that he/she understands.

20.

In its present version, the notification includes most of the information related to the rights of the data subject. However, this information is located at the end of the ‘reply form’ of the notification. The EDPS would consider it more appropriate that clear information is given in the beginning of the form on the precise quality of the data controller, in other words: the national authority responsible for the enforcement of sanctions.

21.

Article 5(5) of the proposal indicates that non-essential elements of the Directive shall be amended in accordance with the regulatory procedure laid down in Council Decision 1999/468/EC on implementing powers conferred to the Commission. The EDPS wonders what elements of the proposal could be considered as non-essential. In order to avoid that the model offence notification be amended further on in its part related to the rights of individuals, the EDPS would recommend completing Article 5(2) of the proposal so that the rights of individual are established in a stable way, including the information on the quality of the data controller.

22.

Article 5(2) could be completed as follows: ‘The offence notification shall contain the name of the authority responsible for the enforcement of sanctions and the purpose of the notification, a description of the offence concerned (…), the possibilities for the holder to contest the grounds of the offence notification and to appeal (…), and the procedure to be followed (…). This information shall be given in a language that can be understood by the recipient’.

23.

With regard to the possibility for the data subject to access his/her data and possibly to contest their processing, the EDPS welcomes the possibility foreseen in the proposal to exercise his/her rights before an authority situated in his/her country of residence. Indeed, facilitation of cross-border enforcement of infringements should not have as a consequence to prevent or render too difficult the possibilities for data subjects to exercise their rights.

V. ELECTRONIC NETWORK — SECURITY ASPECTS

24.	The Explanatory Memorandum (9) indicates the possibility to make use of an already existing EU information system to transfer data necessary for enforcement.

25.

As far as only the technical infrastructure is concerned (10), the EDPS has no objection to the use of an already existing system as far as this limits financial or administrative burdens, without impact on the privacy aspects of the project. However, interoperability should not allow exchange of data with other databases. It must be recalled that no interconnection of databases should be established without a clear and legitimate basis (11).

26.	The EDPS also insists on the fact that the purpose of the network is to allow the exchange of information between national authorities, and not to create a central database of traffic offences. Centralising and re-use of the data does not enter into the scope of the proposal.

27.

The EDPS notes that a safeguard is included in Article 3(3) of the proposal to avoid dissemination of information related to offences. Indeed, only the Member State where the offence was committed is entitled to the processing of the relevant data of the individual concerned. The country of residence of the individual, responsible for the transmission of identification data, is not supposed to store this information or to re-use it for any purpose. The EDPS therefore welcomes the provision of the proposal stating that no country other than the state of offence shall store this information.

28.

Common rules shall be adopted by the Commission, in accordance with Article 4 of the proposal, including the technical procedures for electronic exchange of data between the Member States. In the view of the EDPS, these rules shall include physical and organisational safeguards to prevent misuse of the information. The EDPS is available for further consultation with regard to the elaboration of the details of these rules.

VI. CONCLUSION

29.	The EDPS considers that the proposal provides for sufficient justification for the establishment of the system for the cross-border exchange of information, and that it limits in an adequate way the quality of data to be collected and transferred.

30.	He also welcomes the redress procedure foreseen in the proposal, and in particular the fact that access to personal data will be possible in the country of residence of the data subject.

31.

The EDPS gives the following recommendation in order to improve the text with regard to the information of data subjects: the way data subjects will be informed of the fact they have specific rights will depend on the format of the offence notification. It is therefore important that Article 5 comprises all information relevant for the data subject, in a language that he/she understands. A possible wording is suggested in point 22 of the opinion.

32.

With regard to security, while the EDPS has no objection to the use of an already existing infrastructure to exchange the information — as far as this limits financial or administrative burdens, he insists on the fact that this should not lead to interoperability with other databanks. The EDPS welcomes the limit put in the proposal on the possibilities of use of the data by Member States other that the one where the offence was committed.

33.	The EDPS is available for further consultation with regard to the common rules to be elaborated by the Commission on technical procedures for the electronic exchange of data between the Member States, and in particular with regard to the security aspects of these rules.

Done at Brussels, 8 May 2008.

Peter HUSTINX

European Data Protection Supervisor

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

(2) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).

(3) Articles 6(1)(b) and 7.

(4) Point 1: Context of the proposal, ‘General context’.

(5) Commission Recommendation 2004/345/EC. See the Communication from the Commission concerning the Commission recommendation of 21 October 2003 on enforcement in the field of road safety (OJ C 93, 17.4.2004, p. 5).

(6) Objective mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum and in the White Paper of 2001 on European transport policy.

(7) Explanatory memorandum, 1. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal: while non-resident drivers would represent around 5 % of the global amount of drivers — in countries where the information is available, their share in speeding offences ranges from 2,5 % to 30 %.

(8) See the great differences in the number of casualties depending on Member States, and the fact that the number of casualties would be directly connected with the number of controls. See Impact Assessment, Chapter 2.4.1.

(9)

3.	Legal elements to the proposal, ‘proportionality principle’.

(10) As would be suggested by the Impact Assessment, Chapter 5.3.1.

(11) See in this respect the Comments of the EDPS of 10 March 2006 on the Communication of the Commission on interoperability of European databases, available at: www.edps.europa.eu: Interoperability is mentioned not only in relation to the common use of large scale IT systems, but also with regard to possibilities of accessing or exchanging data, or even of merging databases. This is regrettable since different kinds of interoperability require different safeguards and conditions. This is for instance the case when the concept of interoperability is used as a platform of other proposed measures aiming to facilitate the exchange of information. The EDPS opinion on the principle of availability emphasised that although the introduction of this principle will not lead to new databases, it will necessarily introduce a new use of existing databases by providing new possibilities of access to those databases.

5.12.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/15

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China

(2008/C 310/06)

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) of the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China (‘country concerned’), the Commission has received a request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) (‘the basic Regulation’).

1. Request for review

The request was lodged on 4 September 2008 by Community producer Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH (‘the applicant’) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of ring binder mechanisms.

2. Product

The product under review are certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’), currently classifiable within CN code ex 8305 10 00. This CN code is given only for information. For the purpose of this Notice, ring binder mechanisms shall consist of two steel sheets or wires with at least four half-rings made of steel wire fixed on them and which are kept together by a steel cover. They can be opened either by pulling the half rings or with a small steel trigger mechanism fixed to the ring binder mechanism.

3. Existing measures

The measures currently in force is a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 2074/2004 (3) on imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China. By Council Regulation (EC) No 1208/2004 (4) the definitive anti-dumping duty was extended to imports of ring binder mechanisms consigned from Vietnam, whether declared as originating in Vietnam or not, and by Council Regulation (EC) No 33/2006 (5) to imports of ring binder mechanisms consigned from Lao People's Democratic Republic, whether declared as originating in Lao People's Democratic Republic or not. Council Regulation (EC) No 818/2008 (6) amended Council Regulation (EC) No 2074/2004.

4. Grounds for the review

The request is based on the grounds that the expiry of measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry.

In view of the provisions of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, the applicant established normal value for the People's Republic of China on the basis of a constructed normal value in an appropriate market economy country, which is mentioned in point 5.1(d). The allegation of a continuation of dumping is based on a comparison of normal value, as set out in the preceding sentence, with the export prices of the product concerned when sold for export to the Community.

On this basis, the dumping margin calculated is significant.

The applicant further alleges the likelihood of further injurious dumping. The applicant has submitted evidence showing the precarious situation of the Community industry and alleges that any continuation or recurrence of substantial imports at dumped prices from the country concerned would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of injury to the Community industry should measures be allowed to lapse.

5. Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission hereby initiates a review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

5.1. Procedure for the determination of likelihood of dumping and injury

The investigation will determine whether the expiry of the measures would be likely, or unlikely, to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

(a) Sampling

In view of the apparent number of parties involved in this proceeding, the Commission may decide to apply sampling, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(i) Sampling for importers

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all importers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are hereby requested to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide the following information on their company or companies within the time limit set in point 6(b)(i) and in the formats indicated in point 7:

—	name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers and contact person,

—	the total turnover in euro of the company during the period 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008,

—	the total number of employees,

—	the precise activities of the company with regard to the product concerned,

—	the volume in pieces and value in euro of imports into and resales made in the Community market during the period 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008 of the imported product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China,

—	the names and the precise activities of all related companies (7) involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned,

—	any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample.

By providing the above information, the company agrees to its possible inclusion in the sample. If the company is chosen to be part of the sample, this will imply replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of its response. If the company indicates that it does not agree to its possible inclusion or inclusion in the sample, it will be deemed not to have co-operated in the investigation. The consequences of non-cooperation are set out in point 8 below.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of importers, the Commission will, in addition, contact any known associations of importers.

(ii) Final selection of the sample

All interested parties wishing to submit any relevant information regarding the selection of the sample must do so within the time limit set in point 6(b)(ii).

The Commission intends to make the final selection of the sample after having consulted the parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample.

Companies included in the sample must reply to a questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(b)(iii) and must co-operate within the framework of the investigation.

If sufficient co-operation is not forthcoming, the Commission may base its findings, in accordance with Articles 17(4) and 18 of the basic Regulation, on the facts available. A finding based on facts available may be less advantageous to the party concerned, as explained in point 8.

(b) Questionnaires

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the Community industry and to any known association of producers in the Community, to the exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China, to any association of exporters/producers, to the sampled importers, to any known association of importers, and to the authorities of the exporting country concerned.

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information other than questionnaire replies and to provide supporting evidence. This information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii).

Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard. This request must be made within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii).

(d) Selection of the market economy country

In the previous investigation India was used as an appropriate market economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People's Republic of China. The applicant has now proposed to use, and the Commission envisages using, Thailand for this purpose. Interested parties are hereby invited to comment on the appropriateness of this possible choice within the specific time limit set in point 6(c).

5.2. Procedure for the assessment of Community interest

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation and in the event that the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury is confirmed, a determination will be made as to whether maintaining the anti-dumping measures would not be against the Community interest. For this reason the Commission may send questionnaires to the known Community industry, importers, their representative associations, representative users and representative consumer organizations. Such parties, including those not known to the Commission, provided that they prove that there is an objective link between their activity and the product concerned, may, within the general time limits set in point 6(a)(ii), make themselves known and provide the Commission with information. The parties which have acted in conformity with the preceding sentence may request a hearing, setting out the particular reasons why they should be heard, within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii). It should be noted that any information submitted pursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation will only be taken into account if supported by factual evidence at the time of submission.

6. Time limits

(a) General time limits

(i) For parties to request a questionnaire or other claim forms

All interested parties who did not co-operate in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review should request a questionnaire or other claim forms as soon as possible, but not later than 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(ii) For parties to make themselves known, to submit questionnaire replies and any other information

All interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 40 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the aforementioned period.

Companies selected in a sample must submit questionnaire replies within the time limit specified in point 6(b)(iii).

(iii) Hearings

All interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 40-day time limit.

(b) Specific time limit in respect of sampling

(i)

The information specified in point 5.1(a)(i) should reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, given that the Commission intends to consult parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample on its final selection within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(ii)	All other information relevant for the selection of the sample as referred to in 5.1(a)(ii) must reach the Commission within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(iii)

The questionnaire replies from sampled parties must reach the Commission within 37 days from the date of the notification of their inclusion in the sample.

Parties to the investigation may wish to comment on the appropriateness of Thailand which, as mentioned in point 5.1(d), is envisaged as a market-economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People's Republic of China. These comments must reach the Commission within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

7. Written submissions, questionnaire replies and correspondence

All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as ‘Limited’ (8) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’.

Commission address for correspondence:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: N105 04/92

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 295 65 05

8. Non-co-operation

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially, and use of facts available is made, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

9. Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, according to Article 11(5) of the basic Regulation within 15 months of the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

10. Possibility to request a review under Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation

As this expiry review is initiated in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the findings thereof will not lead to the level of the existing measures being amended but will lead to those measures being repealed or maintained in accordance with Article 11(6) of the basic Regulation.

If any party to the proceeding considers that a review of the level of the measures is warranted so as to allow for the possibility to amend (i.e. increase or decrease) the level of the measures, that party may request a review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

Parties wishing to request such a review, which would be carried out independently of the expiry review mentioned in this notice, may contact the Commission at the address given above.

11. Processing of personal data

It is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (9).

12. Hearing Officer

It is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of DG Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages of the website of DG Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade).

(1) OJ C 146, 12.6.2008, p. 33.

(2) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 359, 4.12.2004, p. 11.

(4) OJ L 232, 1.7.2004, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 7, 12.1.2006, p. 1.

(6) OJ L 221, 19.8.2008, p. 1.

(7) For guidance on the meaning of related companies, please refer to Article 143 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).

(8) This means that the document is for internal use only. It is protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement).

(9) OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

5.12.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/25

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2008/C 310/10)

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

SUMMARY

REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘BRNĚNSKÉ PIVO’ or ‘STAROBRNĚNSKÉ PIVO’

EC No: CZ-PGI-0005-0373-14.10.2004

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

This summary sets out the main elements of the product specification for information purposes.

1. Responsible department in the Member State:

Name:

Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví

Address:

Antonína Čermáka 2a

CZ-160 68 Praha 6-Bubeneč

Tel.

(420) 220 38 31 11

Fax

(420) 221 32 47 18

E-mail:

posta@upv.cz

2. Group:

Name:

Starobrno, a. s.

Address:

Hlinky 160/12

CZ-661 47 Brno

Tel.

(420) 543 51 61 11

Fax

(420) 543 21 10 35

E-mail:

starobrno@starobrno.cz

Composition:

Producers/processors ( X ) Other ( )

This application derogates from Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on account of the fact that there is only one producer in the area. The requirements laid down in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 are fulfilled.

3. Type of product:

Class 2.1: Beers

4. Specification:

(Summary of requirements under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

4.1. Name:

‘Brněnské pivo’ or ‘Starobrněnské pivo’

4.2. Description:

‘Brněnské pivo’ or ‘Starobrněnské pivo’ is produced in a number of basic categories:

non-alcoholic, light ‘tap’ beer (světlé výčepní), dark ‘tap’ beer (tmavé výčepní), lagers.

Raw materials used in production:

Malt — a malt produced from spring two-row barley is used. The properties of the malt must conform to the following values:

Extract in dry malt	(% by weight)	min.	80,0
Kolbach index	(%)		39,0 ±3
Diastatic power	(WK units)	min.	220
Real attenuation	(%)	max.	82
Friability	(%)	min.	75,0

Water — drinking water from the town's water supply system is used. Hops — hops of the Žatecký poloraný červeňák and Magnum varieties are used in granulated and extract form; they have been used for a long time on account of their tried and tested suitability and their influence on the sensory properties of the finished products, i.e. the beer. Those varieties give ‘Brněnské pivo’ or ‘Starobrněnské pivo’ its characteristic hint of bitterness.

Description of individual categories:

Non-alcoholic

beer with a minimum alcohol content — up to 0,6 %, strong sharpness, lower colour and delicate hopped-wort aroma.

Light ‘tap’ beer (světlé výčepní)

gravity 10 %, medium-fermented beer with a golden colour and medium bitterness and sharpness,

‘cut’ amber ‘tap’ beer (řezané polotmavé výčepní) — gravity 10 %, medium-fermented beer with an amber colour, typical mild caramel taste, medium sharpness and full flavour.

Dark ‘tap’ beer (Tmavé výčepní)

gravity 10 %, less highly fermented beer with a typical dark brown colour, distinctive caramel taste and aroma, medium sharpness and full flavour.

Lagers

gravity 11-12 %,

medium-fermented beer with a golden colour, delicate to distinctive hoppy aroma, moderately robust to medium bitterness, strong sharpness, full flavour and rich head.

4.3. Geographical area:

Brno rural district (okres Brno-venkov)

4.4. Proof of origin:

The producer has records covering the suppliers of all the raw materials, the purchasers of the finished products and the system of checks performed in the course of production. The checks performed in the course of production and the specification checks are carried out by the Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce (Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority), which is based in Brno. In keeping with the legislation, each product gives details of the producer.

4.5. Method of production:

Production of ‘Brněnské pivo’ or ‘Starobrněnské pivo’ uses a classic technological process rooted in the Staré Brno brewing tradition, in which the hopped wort is prepared by a two-mash decoction method and the beer is fermented in two stages. The malt is milled and the malt grist is mixed with warm water to produce the mash. Following a stand period, a portion of the mash is transferred to a second vessel — the mash kettle — where the first mashing takes place. Temperatures serving to convert the starches in the malt to sugar and, in this way, transfer the malt extract to the solution are gradually achieved. On completion of the mashing, the entire decoction is boiled for some time and returned to the main mash. Following a stand period, a portion of the mash is again transferred to the mash kettle and the mashing process, including boiling, is repeated (second mash). The decoction is again pumped back into the main mash. Enzymes in the malt are used to transfer the malt extract to the solution. On completion of mashing, the entire mash is transferred to a third vessel, the lautering tun. Insoluble parts of the malt grist form a filter bed through which the malt extract — the wort — is drained off. After the wort is drained off, the filter bed is sparged with water in order to obtain a maximum amount of extract. The sparged filter bed is disposed of as brewing waste (draff). The wort is transferred to a further vessel — the wort kettle — where hops are added in the course of boiling and hopped wort is obtained. The trub created during hopping by the precipitation of malt proteins and hop tannins is separated from the hot hopped wort and the resulting clear wort is cooled, aerated and pitched with brewer's yeasts. The brewer's yeasts used are Sacharomyces uvarum (carlsbergensis), which were cultivated in the 19th century for use in the production of bottom-fermenting beers. Primary fermentation takes place in cylindrical-conical tanks, the green beer obtained is cooled, the yeast is removed and the beer is transferred to lagering vessels in the form of cylindrical-conical tanks (in the case of ‘tap’ beers) or lagering tanks in lagering cellars (in the case of lagers). The beer undergoes secondary fermentation in the lagering vessels. The secondary fermentation period varies according to the type of beer. The fermented beers are filtered prior to racking. Diatomite is used as a filtering agent. Prior to racking, the filtered beer is stored in pressurised tanks according to variety. The beer is racked into bottles or kegs in the following sequence: pressurised tank — flash pasteurisation — racking line. The beer is racked into washed, biologically clean containers (bottles or kegs); kegs are also steam-sterilised before filling. The containers are filled in a carbon dioxide atmosphere, the carbon dioxide being obtained during primary fermentation.

4.6. Link:

In 1323, Queen Eliška Rejčka founded a Cistercian convent in Staré Brno which subsequently had a brewery built in 1325 with the assistance of the Velehrad monastery. The Brno brewery has undergone a series of changes and modernisations, and the beer is nowadays produced in the historical tradition, according to the recipes of old, at the modern brewery situated roughly on the site of the former convent brewery of the Cistercian Order.

‘Brněnské pivo’ or ‘Starobrněnské pivo’ has been produced in the defined area by the method described above for a very long time. The unique character of the production derives from the centuries-old brewing tradition in the defined area.

The results of a public survey carried out in January 2006 attest to the quality and popularity of ‘Brněnské pivo’ or ‘Starobrněnské pivo’.

In the only official evaluation of beer quality (PIVEX) guaranteed by the Czech Beer and Malt Association, the products of Starobrno, a.s. won the prestigious Pivex Gold Cup in 1992, 1996 and 2002.

Starobrno's products have also repeatedly won awards in the surveys conducted by the periodical ‘Pivní kurýr’ (Beer Courier) — Cena českých sládků (Czech Brewers' Award), winning prizes for Baron Trenck in 2002 and Medium in 2003.

4.7. Inspection body:

Name:

Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, Inspektorát v Brně

Address:

Běhounská 10

CZ-601 26 Brno

Tel.

(420) 542 42 67 02

Fax

(420) 542 42 67 17

E-mail:

epodatelna@szpi.gov.cz

4.8. Labelling:

—

(1) OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

		ISSN 1725-2423
Official Journal of the European Union		C 310

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 51 5 December 2008

	II Information
	INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES
	Commission
2008/C 310/03	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5333 — Bell/Zimbo) ( 1 )	13

2008/C 310/04	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5376 — Greenvision Ambiente/Itochu/JV) ( 1 )	13

	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES
	Commission
2008/C 310/05	Euro exchange rates	14

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,2620
JPY	Japanese yen	117,10
DKK	Danish krone	7,4494
GBP	Pound sterling	0,86260
SEK	Swedish krona	10,5315
CHF	Swiss franc	1,5335
ISK	Iceland króna	290,00
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,0365
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,720
EEK	Estonian kroon	15,6466
HUF	Hungarian forint	261,00
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
LVL	Latvian lats	0,7094
PLN	Polish zloty	3,8625
RON	Romanian leu	3,8450
SKK	Slovak koruna	30,195
TRY	Turkish lira	1,9875
AUD	Australian dollar	1,9634
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5948
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,7826
NZD	New Zealand dollar	2,3593
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,9269
KRW	South Korean won	1 871,95
ZAR	South African rand	12,9849
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	8,6847
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,1910
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	15 049,35
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,5930
PHP	Philippine peso	62,360
RUB	Russian rouble	35,3410
THB	Thai baht	45,047
BRL	Brazilian real	3,1310
MXN	Mexican peso	17,2326

Name	Address	Country	Suspension pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 88/97	Date of effect	Taric additional code
Citic – Marmes Bicycle CZ, s. r. o.	Žichlínské předměstí, Albrechtická 391, CZ-563 01 Lanškroun	CZ	Article 5	23.5.2008	A891
Euro-Bike Produktionsgesellschaft mbH	Biaser Straße 29, D-39261 Zerbst	DE	Article 5	15.10.2007	A873
MADIROM PROD Srl.	București, Sector 6, Splaiul Independenței nr. 319, OB. 152, România	RO	Article 5	11.8.2008	A896
S.C. Rich Euro Bike SRL	București, Urziceni Route, nr. 54A, Afumati, Ilfov County, 077010, România	RO	Article 5	10.7.2008	A895
Rose Versand GmbH	Schersweide 4, D-46395 Bocholt	DE	Article 5	16.9.2008	A897

Notice No	Contents	page
	I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions
	OPINIONS
	European Data Protection Supervisor
2008/C 310/01	Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Council Decision concerning the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA	1

2008/C 310/02	Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety	9

	V Announcements
	PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY
	Commission
2008/C 310/06	Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China	15

2008/C 310/07	Commission notice updating the list of parties under examination pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 on the exemption from the extended anti-dumping duty on imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People's Republic of China	19

	PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY
	Commission
2008/C 310/08	Communication from the French Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for oil and gas, designated the Est Champagne Licence) ( 1 )	21

2008/C 310/09	Notice published pursuant to Article 27(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case COMP/B-1/39.402 — RWE Gas Foreclosure ( 1 )	23

	OTHER ACTS
	Commission
2008/C 310/10	Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs	25

Vertex	Latitude	Longitude
A	54,80° N	2,20° E
B	54,80° N	2,90° E
C	54,70° N	2,90° E
D	54,70° N	3,00° E
E	54,30° N	3,00° E
F	54,30° N	2,90° E
G	54,20° N	2,90° E
H	54,20° N	2,50° E
I	54,30° N	2,50° E
J	54,30° N	2,40° E
K	54,40° N	2,40° E
L	54,40° N	2,20° E


	(1) Text with EEA relevance