Full interview with Joanna Apap: EU allowed infringement of passengers' privacy rights 

Joanna Apap is the head of the Justice and Home Affairs research unit at the Centre for European Policy Studies. Read the

).

How do you assess the progress made in establishing an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the EU since the Tampere European Council?

There was a very clear policy agenda set up in Tampere, the so-called 'Tampere scoreboard' and the Commission made proposals on all its aspects. However, the priorities of the different presidencies as well as the events, such as the 11 September terrorist attacks on the US and the numerous deaths of illegal immigrants, have placed the accent much more on a security agenda rather than on an agenda tackling freedom, justice and security in an equal way. Member States were reluctant to adopt initiatives from the Commission in the freedom field, that's why the outcome is orientated towards security.

What is the status of transatlantic co-operation on justice and home affairs issues? Can the EU influence the US on the how terrorism should be tackled? Are there examples where the EU has really exerted meaningful influence?

The Tampere agenda had foreseen measures on external relations. Following the 11 September attacks, there has been a call for reinforced transatlantic co-operation. However, there are divergences on the view of what cooperation/partnership means. All Member States emphasised that the USA had to go through multilateralism and the United Nations system, even if some Member States, such as the United-Kingdom, Spain and Italy, were more inclined than others to respond to America's requests. So far, Europe has responded to America's requests. It is America that has pushed security to the top of the agenda. EU Member States did not clarify enough what cooperation would be put in place and EU citizens were not consulted enough on the implications of such co-operation on their rights - particularly how their right to privacy may be affected. Reciprocity is very important and Europe should ask for it from its transatlantic partner. US politicians, other than the current government, could have decided in a different way and given more place to multilateralism. Countries such as the UK, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Italy have had their own experience of terrorism. It would be fruitful if there could be better exchange of information and closer ties between officials both within the EU as well as at the transatlantic level to create mutual confidence and share experience on how to deal with terrorism.

Do you consider that the current trend of registering travellers (PNR) and including biometric data in identification papers is the way forward to ensure EU citizens' security?

The transfer of passenger data to the US by certain airlines has been taking place since March 2003, without informing the public. EU passenger data will be used for testing the CAPPS II system [the US Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System to deny access to flights to suspected criminals]. The EU institutions are not being transparent on the implications of infringement of privacy rights of EU citizens. An approach of maximum security is not really a guarantee for safety. People must not live with fears and attempts should be made towards more dialogue. More police everywhere will strongly emphasise the perception of the threat and increase a feeling of insecurity rather than safety.

Do politicians slip too easily between the terms 'anti-terrorism', 'organised crime' and 'illegal immigration'?

Terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration are being used as concepts. They are not concepts, they are acts carried out by diverse groups of individuals and they certainly are not of equal gravity. The agenda of politicians has been geared towards security. To attract more votes, conservative p oliticians tend to use the terms 'anti-terrorism', 'organised crime' and 'illegal immigration' as buzz words. This is very confusing for the public. This is also reflected to an extent in the EU Council of Ministers, which is made up of government officials from across the EU. There is a blurring of these terms to push for a security agenda and to attract public and media attention. We have to be careful not to create a security continuum by putting the three terms in the same basket. It is important to separate these terms. For example, human traffickers have to be distinguished from the illegal immigrants who try to come to Europe in search of a better life.

Is the EU building a 'fortress Europe' and closing its doors to economic migrants? What obstacles do you identify in the development of a legal immigration policy?

With the Tampere agenda, the hope was to put in place a pro-active immigration policy. Instead, certain politicians used the 11 September attacks to close Europe's doors and to create a fortress Europe. Europe will be taking a step backwards if Europeans become afraid of foreigners. The main obstacles in the development of a legal immigration policy are the persistent unemployment in Europe and indeed the blurring of the terms illegal immigration, organised crime and terrorism.

How long will Germany, Austria and Italy keep their border controls with the new Member States in place? Are the new Member States well enough equipped and receiving sufficient support to be left in charge of managing the EU's external borders?

In three/four years' time, it is expected that the new member states will become full members of the Schengen area. They will need to show that they are capable of managing their borders. If, they are not assessed able to do so, their entry into the Schengen area could be deffered. I believe that some countries may be ready earlier than others due to their border specificities and geography. This could create a multispeed entry into the Schengen area. To be part of the Schengen area and be left in charge of managing the EU's external borders, the new Member States must secure trust in themselves. I hope that they won't adopt too repressive a stance in order to secure this trust. People from outside Europe should be allowed to ask for asylum and protection. All Member States have pledged to value protection of human rights and they should show that they value it as mush as protecting the borders of Europe against organised crime.

In your view will the EU set itself another ambitious agenda for JHA? If so, what would be its main features?

Proposals for a Tampere II agenda are being discussed. An upcoming European Council would discuss what has and what has not been achieved and define the Justice and Home Affairs priorities in an enlarged EU. The main points for this new JHA agenda could be:

• to make the EU a signatory party to the European Convention of Human Rights and to ensure that people benefit from procedural safeguards and legal remedies to enforce the rights foreseen by this Convention.
• to give a clear status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights as foreseen by the Constitutional Treaty and to give the European citizenship a more concrete reality.

If the constitution is agreed, more JHA issues will be dealt with through European legislation, and not anymore through intergovernmental cooperation. Therefore, the decisions will come under the scrutiny of the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. This will ensure a more democratic and legitimate Europe.

Can you comment on the budget allocated to JHA in the financial perspective for 2007-2013?

The six main net contributors, among others Sweden, the United-Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands and France - sent a letter to President Prodi about budget cuts for the next budget, not only the JHA budget - but the overall one. One can not be ambitious with an under-financed budget.