Alexander AlvaroVizepräsident des Europäischen Parlaments

Author: Alexander Alvaro, Sophie In’t Veld, Claude Moraes, Birgit Sippel, Judith Sargentini, Jan-Philipp Albrecht, Rui Tavares

Subject: TFTP review – Article 13 & Article 4

The Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program provides for a periodical review of the implementation of the Agreement. The Commission presented its report on the joint review of the implementation of the Agreement on 16.3.2011.

The review provisions are contained in Article 13 of the Agreement. Drawing from the content of Article 13, the review shall have particular regard to the number of financial payment messages accessed. Why is this number not mentioned in the Commission report? What is the number?

According to the Article 4 of the Agreement, Requests must be tailored as narrowly as possible. According to official reports, due to technical reasons, the designated providers of international financial payment messaging services can only provide data in bulk. Why have not there been any cases where financial payment messaging data were transmitted which were not requested?

According to the Commission report, although the wording of these phrases is similar, there is a clear difference in the practical effects of the application of the terminology “as narrowly tailored as possible” as used in both articles 4 (2) (with respect to the data requested of the designated provider) and Article 5 (6) (with respect to the searches made of the data). Why does the Commission accept the different application of this terminology?

According to the Commission report, the TFTP Agreement can not work effectively without the provision of significant amounts of data, since it is impossible to predict in advance which part of that data will be relevant to a terrorism investigation. Why does the Commission not consider this to be a breach of Article 4 of the Agreement?

According to the Commission report, the review team was presented with evidence of the reduction in the scope of the information requested during the first six months of the Agreement. What percentage was the reduction?

Auhors: Alexander Alvaro, Sophie In’t Veld, Simon Busuttil, Claude Moraes, Birgit Sippel, Judith Sargentini, Jan-Philipp Albrecht, Rui Tavares

Subject: TFTP review – Article 12, Article 15 & Article 16

The Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program provides for a periodical review of the implementation of the Agreement. The Commission presented its report on the joint review of the implementation of the Agreement on 16.3.2011.

According to the Commission report, the overseers see and verify all of the searches performed. How is this done exactly? How do the overseers check and verify the nexus to terrorism?

According to the Commission report, the Treasury explained that so far little use has been made by individuals of the possibilities to exercise their data protection rights under the Agreement. Why was only the Treasury asked? Why is there no wording on the implementation experiences by European NDPAs? What has the experience of the European NDPAs been?

Why does the Commission accept that contrary to Article 15, the right of access only applies to extracted/accessed data with terrorism nexus?

Why does the Commission accept, that contrary to Article 16, the Treasury would refer individuals with a request for rectification or erasure of information from a bank transfer to their own bank?

According to the Commission report, the quarterly reports provided by independent auditors provide welcome assurance. According to the Commission report, options should be explored to provide more regular information on the effectiveness and implementation of the TFTP, e.g. by way of six-monthly updates. Why does the Commission only plan to do a follow up review in 1.5 years?