The rejection by the European Parliament on the EU-US agreement on transfer of swift data

Authors

  • Luis Manuel Lombardero Expósito Doctor en Derecho. Teniente de la Guardia Civil (Escala Superior de Oficiales) (España)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51302/ceflegal.2010.12861

Keywords:

Swift, banking data, financing of terrorism, data protection

Abstract

Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 december 2009, the balance of power within the European Union has been significantly modified. While the system of co-decision between Council and Parliament is not new, since then extends to a host of subjects. The failure to adopt the EU-US Agreement on data processing and transfer of financial messaging EU to the US the purposes of program monitoring terrorist financing, which had already entered into force provisionally upon adoption by the Council of the Union, is proof of this change.

Through this agreement the US have access to Swift data stored by the company in Europe and on intra-bank transactions for the purposes of investigating terrorist financing. Previously the US gained access to them through a server located in its territory Swift which stored also intra-European transactions. Swift announces its intention to store the data for these transfers exclusively in Europe, forcing the US government to negotiate an agreement with the EU, if not to be excluded from the knowledge of the data. The agreement is signed with the EU Council the day before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which excludes the European Parliament's involvement in the negotiation and conclusion.

He finally rejected the agreement concerned that the guarantees for data protection are considered in the agreement, lack of reciprocity and possibly on its previous marginalization of the process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2010-05-10

How to Cite

Lombardero Expósito, L. M. (2010). The rejection by the European Parliament on the EU-US agreement on transfer of swift data. CEFLegal. Revista práctica De Derecho, (112), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.51302/ceflegal.2010.12861