Access Now calls on the European Commission to urgently suspend EU-US-Australia agreements, as well as the EU PNR Directive. Member States must immediately put an end to the transposition of the EU PNR Directive. All PNR systems clearly do not meet the criteria set out by the Court of Justice in the EU-Canada decision and therefore disproportionately infringe on the fundamental rights of travellers. 1. In accordance with existing agreements or arrangements regarding the exchange of information between the United States and any Member State of the European Union or Europol and Eurojust, DHS provides, within its respective mandates, analytical information to prevent cases examined or examined by the relevant police authorities, other law enforcement or specialized judicial authorities of the EU Member States. Europol and Eurojust, as part of their respective mandates. , the detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist and related offences or cross-border crime have been obtained in the European Union in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 1, paragraph b). Transmission of passenger file data, international agreements on the terrorist financing monitoring programme. The Court`s decision contains clear guidelines and criteria that PNR systems must meet in order to be compatible with EU law. In the table below, we have looked closely at the agreements between the EU and Australia and the EU and the US, as well as the EU PNR Directive, to see if they will pass this test. The result is clear: all three do not meet all or many of the criteria set by the court and should therefore be suspended immediately.
The verdict is a great victory for fundamental privacy and data protection rights. It has implications far beyond Europe and Canada, as disproportionate government agreements on the collection and storage of PNR data affect the privacy of all border travellers and the ruling provides reasons to reverse legal damage to the EU, Australia and the United States. Next steps: Suspend and renegotiate PNR agreements in violation of PNR data or passenger records contain information about a passenger`s flight data, including itinerary, contact information, payment methods, guests and much more. All this information is stored for commercial purposes in airline databases. PNR data are considered by law enforcement agencies to be potentially useful in the prevention and fight against terrorism and serious offences that are vaguely defined. For at least the past decade, governments have sought access to this information through broad and disproportionate agreements that define excessive detention mandates and rely on discriminatory profiling. We take a close look at what the Court of Justice has said, how exactly the PNR agreement between the EU and Canada has not protected our rights and what the ruling means for other EU NNP agreements which, as we see, must now be suspended and reformed. When assessing a new PNR agreement between the European Union and a third country, it remains important to reflect on a fundamental concern that is reflected in all these agreements. With their graduation, lawmakers require airlines and computerized reservation systems to provide foreign law enforcement with PNR data from all their passengers, almost all innocent and ignorant citizens. This in itself remains a rather unusual phenomenon and requires very careful consideration.
While acceptable, it requires not only a legal basis to agree, but also irrefutable proof that the agreement is necessary and proportionate and that the safeguards are sufficiently developed, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  The EU has already signed agreements allowing EU air carriers to transfer PNR data to the US and Australia. In December 2017, the Council authorized the Commission to renegotiate the draft PNR agreement with Canada in order to adapt it to the data protection requirements set by the Court of Justice