On 20 June the German Parliament rejected a resolution that would have requested the federal government to join the action for annulment of the EU telecommunications data retention directive at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The text had been introduced by the opposition parties Greens, Liberals and Left Party and was supported by 133 parliamentarians. But the grand coalition of the governing parties voted against it, with one abstention from the Conservatives. The authors of the resolution argued that the data retention decision should have been made in the "Third Pillar" of the European Union structure in the form of a framework directive, which would have required an unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers.

The governments of Ireland and Slovakia who voted against the

The EU directive on mandatory retention of communications traffic data went into force as an EU law on 3 May 2006, but its transposition into national laws seems more uncertain than before. 16 of the 25 member states of the EU have declared that they will delay the retention of Internet traffic data for an additional period of 18 months. The recent NSA scandal in the United States also clarified the dangers of access to the data by intelligence agencies and led a number of civil liberties groups, among which EDRi member Netzwerk Neue Medien, to protest against data retention in Europe. A draft data retention law has already been withdrawn in the House of Representatives in Washington.

In the German Parliament, the Greens have drafted a resolution that would ask the Government to challenge the legality of the EU directive before

European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) 2005 annual report was presented on the 19 April . As stated by the report, following the first year of setting up the new independent authority on protecting personal data and privacy, 2005 was a year of consolidation confirming its main activities: supervision, consultation and cooperation. The authority increased its staff and set up its own press service.

Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, stated that EDPS is now advising the European Commission, Council and Parliament on proposals of new legislation affecting privacy and six formal opinions were published last year in this context. Related mainly to the policy area "Justice, Freedom and Security", these opinions included proposals such as the highly controversial one on data retention, but also for large scale IT-systems

Unites States has indicated in a recent meeting with the EU Council that it will be interested in accessing the traffic data collected by the European countries according with the recent Directive on Data Retention. Also the US officials expressed concerns over the draft Framework Decision on Data Protection.

During the EU-US informal High Level meeting on Freedom, Security and Justice on 2-3 March 2006, in Vienna, the US officials mentioned in the context of fighting terrorist use of Internet that they were "considering approaching each Member State to ensure that the data collected on the basis of the recently adopted Directive on data retention be accessible to them." The Presidency and the Commission replied that these data were accessible like any other data on the basis of the existing MLA agreements (bilateral

Article 29 Data Protection Working Party has adopted its opinion on data retention directive as adopted by the Council on 21 February 2006, pointing out major criticism to the adoption and to the present text agreed by the Parliament.

The Working Party recalls its previous concerns and reservations expressed in its last Opinion 113 of 21 October 2005 on the then draft Directive. The decision to retain communication data for the purpose of combating serious crime was considered as an unprecedented one that may endanger the fundamental values and freedoms all European citizens.

The privacy experts consider of utmost importance that the Directive is implemented and accompanied in each Member State by measures protecting privacy. The Directive leaves room for interpretation and therefore adequate

As a follow up to the latest anti-terror plan of action (49 proposals) of November 2005, the Danish government is now proposing new anti-terror legislation.

In the current round of public hearing, massive criticism has been raised by NGOs, legal experts, Danish industry, telecom providers, and from a number of political parties, including the Liberal Party, which is one of the ruling parties in the current government. The criticism concerns both the substance in the proposals and the process of their preparation.

The proposals presented by the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Science & Technology are quite far reaching and encompass a range of intrusions into citizens' privacy.

Among the most debated proposals are: - An access for the police intelligence services (PET) to request

The draft of new Police Act has raised a lot of criticism in the last days from privacy activists and legal experts on its broad encroachment upon citizens' right to privacy, granted by the Slovenian Constitution. Through the suggested act, the Slovenian government grants more power to the police, using terrorism, the Schengen treaty and recent serious crimes as a handy excuse.

The Minister for Interior Affairs replied that changes to the Police Act were inevitable due to demands of the Schengen treaty. Experts agree that the Police Act should recieve some new provisions if Slovenia wants to fully enter the Schengen regime, however, such disproportionate and overall measures are not required by the Schengen treaty.

Goran Klemencic from the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security says that

The long-awaited application decree for telecommunication data retention was finally published in France on 26 March 2006. It requires telecommunication data operators (Internet and telephony) to retain data for one year. Concerned data are those allowing the identification of: - the user and its terminal equipment - the recipients of the communication - the date, time and duration of the communication - the additional services used and their suppliers - the origin and the location of the communication (for telephony services).

The decree specifies provisions that were first introduced in the Daily Safety Law ('Loi sur la sécurité quotidienne' or LSQ), in November 2001, as an allegedly urgent procedure to fight terrorism, after the 11 September attacks in the USA. Four years and four months after its adoption, this law