On 9 March the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the implementation of the Data Protection Directive of 1995 (95/46/EC), based on an own-initiative report by the Italian radical Marco Cappato. The report is very critical about the lack of adequate privacy protection in Europe.

The report centres on data protection within the third pillar (the area of justice and internal affairs). It urges the Commission to finally create the promised 'legal instrument' to protect privacy in the third pillar, especially concerning Europol, Eurojust and all other third-pillar organs.

The parliamentary resolution dedicates very harsh words to the transfer of PNR-data: "(...)national and European laws on the transfer of personal data to third countries have been flagrantly breached by the transfer of transatlantic

Antitrust regulators from the all EU member States will discuss a draft European Commission antitrust ruling against Microsoft in Brussels on 15 March. In a second meeting on 22 March the regulators will discuss the measures, including fines, that will be taken against Microsoft. It is expected that the final ruling will become public in the days after the meeting.

The EU Commission has drafted a ruling that finds Microsoft guilty of abusing the dominant position of its Windows operating system. The Commission has been investigating Microsoft practices since 2000, following a complaint by Sun Microsystems. Sun accused Microsoft of abusing its dominant position in the market by not releasing crucial information about the communication between computers and servers running MS Windows. The Commission is also investigating the tying of Windows media player into the Windows operating system. This makes competition for other media players very difficult.

The European Union's disputed Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights is scheduled for a fast-track procedure that may lead to it being adopted by the European Council in little more than two weeks. At present, it is still under discussion in the Brussels Parliament. The Rapporteur, French Conservative Janelly Fourtou, and the Council both wish to pass this Directive in First Reading, before the enlargement of the European Union. Trying to avoid delay by too much discussion, they have each chosen the fastest procedure possible in their respective institutions.

The final discussion about the report in the Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee took place on Monday 23 February. The item was scheduled at the very last minute, the Friday before, when most of the Members of Parliament were already gone. With many MEPs still on their way to Brussels on Monday, only 14 MEPs were present. The discussion only lasted 15 minutes after the Council and the Commission had ended their formal introductions.

The European Commission has adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation that will set legally binding minimum standards for harmonised security features, including biometric identifiers, in all EU passports.

The Commission chooses facial images as a mandatory biometric identifier for passports. Fingerprints can be added as an option at the discretion of Member States. The proposal sets out the minimum standards and will not stop Member States that wish to go further.

Inclusion of a facial image on a contact-less chip would allow EU Member States to meet the requirements of the US Visa Waiver programme in conformity with standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The US demands the inclusion of facial images in passports from EU countries in order to continue participation in its Visa Waiver programme after October 2004. Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Antonio Vitorino will travel to the US in May to discuss the looming deadline with US officials. However, for the US to change the October deadline is almost impossible. It would have to go through Congress as it would require a change in the legislation.

The European Court of Justice in a recent judgement has underlined the rights to freedom of information. If a governmental document cannot be disclosed in full for reasons of public security or institutional confidentiality, it should at least be made available in part.

To promote freedom of information and grant 'the widest possible access' to relevant governmental documents, the European Council and Commission adopted a Code of Conduct in December 1993, later both translating that Code into (legally binding) Decisions. According to those Decisions, access can only be refused if disclosure could undermine "the protection of the public interest (public security, international relations, monetary stability, court proceedings, inspections and investigations) or to protect the institution's interest in the confidentiality of its

The final vote on two of the most controversial information society Directives, the Directive on Software Patents and the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights has been delayed once more. The IPRE directive was withdrawn last minute from the 9 February plenary agenda of the European Parliament. On 6 February the Council presented a compromise.

The IPRE directive was designed to prevent piracy and counterfeiting in the EU, but the scope and criminal sanctions were extended to infringement of any IP right, for example to peer-to-peer file exchangers. The new scope was strongly criticised by consumer organisations, telecoms operators and internet service providers. They claimed it would force them into endless legal proceedings with representatives from the music and

The UK civil liberties group Privacy International, in co-operation with European Digital Rights, the Foundation for Information Policy Research and Statewatch, has published an analysis of the EU-US negotiations on the transfer on passenger information (PNR). The report titled 'Transferring Privacy' describes how the European Commission leaves European privacy rights at the mercy of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

According to the report the European Commission has 'not assured adequate protection requirements, clear purpose limitation, non-excessive data collection, limited data retention time, and insurance against further transfers beyond the Department of Homeland Security'. The report also points to the insufficiently independent privacy officers on the US side that will process complaints from EU passengers and a retention period of

MEP Marco Cappato has revealed a letter EU Commissioner Bolkestein sent to Tom Ridge, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. The letter was sent on 18 December, only two days after Bolkestein had given his presentation in which he tried to mislead the European Parliament on the true nature of the agreement on the transfer of Air Passengers personal data to U.S. agencies.

Most interesting is the subtone of the letter, in which Bolkestein behaves like an ally of Ridge against the forces wanting to prevent the transfer: "On my return from Strasbourg (...), where the initial reaction from members of the European Parliament was relatively balanced, I would like to thank you once again for your personal commitment (....) to the conclusion of our discussions. I share entirely your view that we have set a good standard here for EU/U.S. cooperation and I hope we can keep it up."