               AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
            An Bhruiséil,12.1.2021
            COM(2021) 16 final
            2021/0007(NLE)
            Togra le haghaidh
            CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
            maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh san Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta a mhéid a bhaineann le Leasú 28 ar Iarscríbhinn 9 Roinn D a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta Idirnáisiúnta

               MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN

               1.Subject matter of the proposal

               This proposal concerns the decision establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in connection with Amendment 28 to Annex 9 on Facilitation to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the ‘Chicago Convention’). The ICAO Council adopted this Amendment on 23 June 2020.

               Amendment 28 relates to the rules for processing of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, which are addressed in Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9.

               PNR data are personal data of passengers collected by airlines for their business purposes, unlike other travel-related data collected by them on behalf of the authorities such as Advance Passenger Information (API). Law enforcement authorities around the world increasingly use the PNR data transferred to them by airlines to fight terrorism and other forms of serious crime.

               2.Context of the proposal

               2.1.The Convention on International Civil Aviation (the ‘Chicago Convention’)

               The Chicago Convention aims to regulate international air transport. It entered into force on 4 April 1947 and established the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO.

               All EU Member States are Parties to the Chicago Convention.

               2.2.The International Civil Aviation Organization

               ICAO is a specialised agency of the United Nations. The objectives of the Organization are to develop the principles and techniques of international air navigation and to foster the planning and development of international air transport.

               The ICAO Council is a permanent body of ICAO with a membership of 36 Contracting States elected by the ICAO Assembly for a three-year term. For the period 2019-2022, there are seven EU Member States represented in the ICAO Council
                  1
               .

               Mandatory functions of the ICAO Council, listed in Article 54 of the Chicago Convention, include the adoption of international Standards and Recommended Practices (also known as SARPs), designated as Annexes to the Chicago Convention. Standards are specifications for which a uniform application is considered necessary, whereas Recommended Practices are not mandatory.

               The ICAO Council also convenes the Assembly, which is ICAO’s sovereign body. The ICAO Assembly meets at least once every three years and establishes the Organization’s political direction for the upcoming triennium. The 40th Session of the ICAO Assembly took place on 24 September-4 October 2019 in Montreal, Canada.

               2.3.The process for updating ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) on PNR

               The elaboration of new PNR international Standard and Recommended Practices (SARPs) is rooted in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2396 (2017), adopted on 21 December 2017
                  2
               . The Resolution requires UN Member States to ‘develop the capability to collect, process and analyse, in furtherance of ICAO standards and recommended practices, passenger name record (PNR) data and to ensure PNR data is used by and shared with all their competent national authorities, with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’. It also urges ICAO ‘to work with its Member States to establish a standard for the collection, use, processing and protection of PNR data’.

               The drafting of proposals to review the PNR SARPs was entrusted to an expert group, the ICAO PNR Task Force, set up by the ICAO Air Transport Committee (ATC) in March 2019. The work of the Task Force concluded in December 2019 and was reviewed by the ICAO Facilitation Panel in January 2020.

               The proposals of the ICAO Facilitation Panel were endorsed by the ATC on 7 February 2020. Such endorsement was followed by a formal consultation of the ICAO Member States by way of ICAO State letter 2020 14E. The State consultation concluded on 15 May 2020.

               Following the State consultation, the ICAO Secretariat analysed the responses received from States and presented a proposal to the ATC. The Secretariat proposal was practically identical to the outcome of the Facilitation Panel meeting in January 2020. Similarly, as its meeting of 19 June 2019, the ATC recommended the ICAO Council to adopt the PNR SARPs as presented by the Secretariat with only minor corrections.

               On 23 June 2020, during the Tenth Meeting of its 220th Session, the ICAO Council adopted Amendment 28 to Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention. As noted above, Annex 9 lays down international standards on Facilitation and its Chapter 9, Section D relates specifically to PNR.

               On 17 July 2020, ICAO informed its Member States of the adoption of Amendment 28 through another State letter (EC 6/3-20/71). The Amendment became effective on 30 October 2020, unless a majority of States register their disapproval by that date in accordance with Article 90 of the Chicago Convention. The Amendment will be applicable as of 28 February 2021. However, the ICAO Member States can notify, by 30 January 2020, any differences between their national regulations and practices and those enshrined in the Standards laid down by Amendment 28 if they consider that certain differences exists between their domestic regulations or practices and any of the Standards. Such notification must be submitted in accordance with Article 38 of the Chicago Convention and the applicable mechanism for the filing of differences.

               2.4.The PNR-aspects of Amendment 28 to Annex 9

               If effective, Amendment 28 will replace existing Standards 9.22-9.22.1 and Recommended Practice 9.23 with new SARPs 9.23-9.38. These SARPs are significantly more detailed than the existing framework, covering among others aspects related to purpose limitation, oversight, data subject’s rights, the transmission method, data retention, the processing of sensitive data and the relationship between the Contracting States to the Chicago Convention concerning PNR data transfers. Some of the non-binding guidance provided in ICAO Document 9944 setting out guidelines on PNR data
                  3
                has been upgraded to the new Standards.

               Standard 9.23 requires the contracting States to develop the capability to collect, use, process and protect PNR and to translate the rules for the practical implementation of this capability in the appropriate internal legal and administrative framework in consistency with the SARPs. The mandatory character of the development of PNR-processing capabilities is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2396 (2017).

               Standard 9.24 requires contracting States, in full compliance with human rights and fundamental freedoms, to clearly identify the PNR data to be used in their operations and set the purposes for which PNR data may be used by the authorities. Such purposes should be no wider than necessary, including, in particular, border security purposes to fight terrorism and serious crime. In addition, the disclosure of PNR data within the receiving State or in others should be limited to authorities competent that exercise relevant functions related to the purposes for which PNR data are processed. These authorities should also ensure comparable protections as those afforded by the disclosing authority.

               Standard 9.25 establishes requirements concerning data security and the rights of individuals in relation to the processing of their PNR data, including as regards non-discrimination, the provision of information, administrative and judicial redress, access to data and the possibility to request corrections, deletions or notations. Recommended Practice 26 encourages States to notify individuals about the processing of their PNR data and the rights and means of redress afforded to them.

               Standard 9.27 requires contracting States to base the automated processing of PNR data on objective, precise and reliable criteria that effectively indicate the existence of a risk, without leading to unlawful differentiation, and refrain from making decisions that produce significant adverse actions affecting the individuals’ legal interest based solely on the automated processing of PNR data.

               Under Standard 9.28, States are required to designate one (or more) competent domestic authority(ies) with the power to conduct independent oversight of the protection of PNR data and determine whether PNR data are being collected, used, processed and protected with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

               Standard 9.29 precludes States from requiring airlines to collect PNR data that are not required as part of their normal business operating procedures, or to filter such data prior to transmission. It also prohibits the processing of sensitive data – that is, PNR data revealing an individual’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership or data concerning their health, sexual life or sexual orientation – except in exceptional and immediate circumstances to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person. In the event such data are transmitted, States are required to delete them as soon as practicable.

               Standard 9.30 lays down obligations concerning data retention and the de-personalisation and re-personalisation of PNR data, requiring States to only retain the data for a set period as defined in their legal and administrative framework which shall be that period necessary and proportionate for the purposes for which the PNR data is used, and mask it after an established timeframe. Following masking, re-personalisation should only be possible when the data is to be used in connection with an ongoing case, threat or risk related to the purposes for which PNR data can be processed. Recommended Practice 9.32 suggests a maximum retention period of five years and Recommended Practice 9.33 proposes that PNR data should be de-personalised within six months and no later than two years from the moment it is transferred by airlines.

               Standard 9.33 establishes that PNR data should be, as a rule, transmitted through the less privacy-intrusive push method. It also seeks to minimise burdens on air carriers by limiting the ability of States to impose fines for transmission errors in certain circumstances and by requiring them to limit the number of push times.

               Standard 9.34(a) requires contracting States not to inhibit or prevent the transfer of PNR data to another contracting State that complies with the new Standards. At the same time, Standard 9.34(b) provides that ICAO contracting States shall retain the ability to introduce or maintain higher levels of protection of PNR data, in accordance with their domestic legal framework, and to enter into additional arrangements with other States, in particular, with a view to comply with their internal legal requirements, or establish more detailed provisions relating to PNR data processing and transfer provided that those measures do not otherwise conflict with the Standards.

               Under Standard 9.35, contracting States may be called to demonstrate their compliance with the new Standards upon request from another State. Where contracting States determine that they must impede PNR data transfers or fine an air carrier, Standard 9.36 requires them to do so in a transparent manner and with the intent of resolving the situation.

               Recommended Practice 9.37 encourages States to notify others maintaining air travel with them of any significant changes in their PNR programme, including as regards compliance with the SARPs. Recommended Practice 9.38 suggests that air carriers are not penalised by States while they attempt to resolve disputes regarding PNR data transfers.

               2.5.The applicable EU legal framework

               The processing of PNR data constitutes an essential instrument in the EU’s common response to terrorism and serious crime and a building block of the Security Union. Identifying and tracing suspicious travel patterns by processing PNR to gather evidence and, where relevant, find associates of criminals and unravel criminal networks has proven essential to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist and serious crime offences. At the same time, processing of PNR data constitutes an interference with the rights to privacy and protection of personal data as enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (‘Charter’). In accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter, it shall therefore be provided for by law, respect the essence of the rights concerned and, subject to the principle of proportionality, be allowed only insofar as it is necessary and genuinely meet an objective of general interest of the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. One such objective of general interest is the protection of citizens from serious security threats.

               On 27 April 2016, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Directive (EU) 2016/681 on the use of PNR data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime
                  4
               . This Directive enables national authorities to require air carriers to transfer PNR data, while providing safeguards for individuals’ rights to privacy and data protection. The deadline for the Member States to transpose the legislation into national law was 25 May 2018. The review
                  5
                of the first two years of application of the Directive carried out in 2020 showed that the processing of PNR data had delivered tangible results in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.

               Also in April 2016, the European Parliament and the Council adopted new EU data protection rules: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR
                  6
               ) and Directive (EU) 2016/680 (on data protection in the law enforcement sector
                  7
               ). Among others, the GDPR lays down rules on international transfers of personal data that are applicable to the transmission of PNR data by air carriers. Directive (EU) 2016/680 regulates the processing of personal data by law enforcement authorities and completes the regime of Directive (EU) 2016/681 on aspects such as data subject rights and case-by-case transfers of data to law enforcement authorities in third countries.

               There are currently two international agreements in place between the EU and third countries (namely Australia
                  8
                and the United States
                  9
               ) on the processing and transfer of PNR data. On 26 July 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued an Opinion (henceforth Opinion 1/15
                  10
               ) on the envisaged Agreement on the transfer and processing of PNR data between the EU and Canada, signed on 25 June 2014. The Court found that the agreement could not be concluded in its intended form because some of its provisions were incompatible with the fundamental rights to privacy and to personal data protection protected by the Charter. In particular, the Court interpreted the relevant Charter provisions as requiring specific safeguards with regard to oversight by an independent authority, processing of sensitive data, automated processing of PNR data and non-discrimination, purposes for which PNR data may be processed, and the retention, use, disclosure and further transfer of PNR data. Further to the adoption of negotiating directives by the Council in December 2017, the Commission begun new PNR negotiations with Canada in June 2018.

               More generally, an increasing number of third countries are collecting PNR data from air carriers and several of them have approached the Commission over the past few years to express their interest in concluding an international agreement on PNR with the EU. In the absence of a legal basis allowing for data transfers, air carriers are confronted with a situation of conflict of laws and risk fines and other sanctions. At the same time, further to the implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/681, EU Member States are requesting air carriers from third countries to transfer PNR data to their Passenger Information Units. A number of third countries have refused such transfers – and others have threatened to do so – as a retaliatory measure due to the impossibility of receiving PNR data from the EU, therefore compromising the effectiveness of the EU PNR mechanism.

               The EU approach to PNR data transfers to third countries dates back to 2010
                  11
                and predates the adoption of Directive (EU) 2016/681, the reform of the EU data protection framework and Opinion 1/15 of the Court of Justice. The EU Security Union Strategy for the period 2020 to 2025 envisages the review of the approach as a mid-term action
                  12
               .

               3.Position to be taken on the Union’s behalf

               3.1.Background

               The Union strongly supports the development of new international standards on PNR and has actively contributed to the elaboration of the SARPs laid down in Amendment 28 to Annex 9.

               The subject matter of Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9 of Amendment 28 concerns an area for which the Union has exclusive competence by virtue of the last limb of Article 3(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as it is liable to affect common rules on PNR and data protection.

               Accordingly, throughout the discussions within the ICAO preparatory bodies, the approach of the EU Member States and of the Commission (as observer) was guided by the orientations set out in Council Decision (EU) 2019/2107 of 28 November 2019 laying down the Union position
                  13
               . This position reflects the requirements of the EU legal framework on PNR and data protection, notably under Directive (EU) 2016/681, Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Directive (EU) 2016/680, as well as under the Charter as interpreted in the relevant case law of the Court of Justice, in particular Opinion 1/15.

               On 25 March 2020, the Council of the EU endorsed a further Union position
                  14
                on the reply to the ICAO State letter 2020 14E through which Contracting States were consulted on the draft SARPs. The position welcomed the work undertaken by ICAO to develop the SARPs, and highlighted the importance of the protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data, in the processing of PNR. Therefore, it submitted a drafting proposal aimed at amending (then draft) Standard 9.34. Its objective was to reinforce the text of this Standard in order to ensure that the ability of Contracting States to establish stricter requirements for PNR data transfers is clearly reflected in the SARPs.

               It is to be noted that in the revision process following the State consultation, the ICAO Secretariat did not take into account the drafting suggestions submitted by the EU Member States, nor amendments proposed by any other ICAO contracting States, and retained the draft text resulting from the Facilitation Panel at its meeting of January 2020. Instead, the ICAO Secretariat proposed that ‘States that have made proposals to amend the provision should be invited to submit their proposal(s) to amend the text in Paragraph 9.34 to the next meeting of the Facilitation Panel (FALP/12), planned for July 2021’.

               On 23 June 2020, during the ICAO Council meeting where Amendment 28 was adopted, the EU Member States stressed again the importance of striking the necessary balance between data availability and data protection and referred to the above-mentioned Union positions as submitted during the State consultation process. They also underlined the importance of ensuring high data protection levels and explicitly referred to the obligations stemming from the EU’s legal framework. In particular, the EU Member States emphasised the importance of the SARPs, in particular of Standard 9.34, arguing that it should be interpreted in such a way to allow States to retain the ability to require from other contracting States not only to demonstrate compliance of their legal framework with the SARPs but also the fulfilment of higher data protection standards, notably for enabling PNR data transfers, when so required by their domestic legal frameworks.

               3.2.Proposed position

               The present proposal for a Council Decision is necessary to adopt, within the timeframe set by the ICAO State letter EC 6/3-20/71, the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf with regard to the ICAO Council adoption of the new PNR SARPs.

               The new PNR SARPs set out in Amendment 28 (Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9) largely follow the lines of the Union position enshrined in Council Decision (EU) 2019/2107. As such, they lay down ambitious safeguards on data protection, notably on data subject rights, oversight by an independent authority, sensitive data, automated processing of PNR data and non-discrimination, purposes for which PNR data may be processed, and the retention, use, disclosure and further transfer of PNR data.

               In the Commission’s view, the SARPs allow significant progress to be achieved at international level in relation to the protection and use of PNR data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. Therefore, no disapproval should be notified by the EU Member States under Article 90 of the Chicago Convention, in particular since such a notification would also undermine the efforts to establish higher standards for the protection of PNR data worldwide if compared to the current ICAO rules of PNR.

               The SARPs also take into consideration, in Standard 9.34(b), that the contracting States – such as the EU Member States - may retain the ability to maintain or introduce higher levels of protection in accordance with their domestic legal and administrative framework, and to enter into additional arrangements with other States in order to establish more detailed provisions relating to the transfer of PNR data. Under EU law, transfers by airlines of PNR data processed in the EU to a law enforcement authority in a third country must, in particular, meet the requirements of Chapter V of the GDPR and those resulting from the Charter, as specified in particular in the Court’s Opinion 1/15. Those requirements are more exacting than what is required under the PNR SARPs contained in Amendment 28.

               In this context, Standard 9.34(a) requires Contracting States not to inhibit or prevent the transfer of PNR data to another Contracting State that complies with the SARPs, the current language of the Standard 9.34 is, from the perspective of the European Union and its Member States, not sufficiently clear in legal terms in expressing that the EU Member States are not precluded from imposing those requirements notwithstanding Standard 9.34.

               For this reason, the Commission considers that Member States should notify a difference, pursuant to Article 38 of the Chicago Convention. Such difference, described in the Annex to the present Proposal for Council Decision, should remain strictly limited to what is necessary to avoid any  doubt as to the prerogative for the EU Member States to impose more exacting requirements for PNR data transfers to third countries, and consequently to inhibit such transfers if such requirements are not fulfilled.

               4.Legal basis

               4.1.Procedural legal basis

               4.1.1.Principles

               Article 218(9) TFEU provides for decisions establishing ‘the positions to be adopted on the Union’s behalf in a body set up by an agreement, when that body is called upon to adopt acts having legal effects, with the exception of acts supplementing or amending the institutional framework of the agreement.’

               Article 218(9) TFEU applies regardless of whether the Union is a member of the body or a party to the agreement
                  15
               .

               The concept of ‘acts having legal effects’ includes acts that have legal effects by virtue of the rules of international law governing the body in question. It also includes instruments that do not have a binding effect under international law, but that are ‘capable of decisively influencing the content of the legislation adopted by the EU legislature’
                  16
               .

               4.1.2.Application to the present case

               ICAO is a body set up by an international agreement, namely the Chicago Convention.

               Amendment 28 to Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention contains standards that are, in principle, binding, upon ICAO members, among which the Member States of the Union and thus constitutes an act having legal effects. Certain of those legal effects depend however on the notification of differences, and the terms of such notification. Therefore, the adoption of a Union position in respect of such notification falls within the scope of Article 218(9) TFEU.

               The legal effects of the standards and of any differences to be notified fall in an area covered by Union rules,  notably Directive (EU) 2016/681 as well as the existing and future international agreements on PNR between the EU and third countries. This entails that, in accordance with Article 3(2) TFEU, the Union has exclusive competence in this matter.

               The notification of differences does not entail that the institutional framework of the Chicago agreement be supplemented or amended.

               4.2.Substantive legal basis

               4.2.1.Principles

               The substantive legal basis for a decision under Article 218(9) TFEU depends primarily on the objective and content of the act in respect of which a position is taken on the Union's behalf. If the act pursues two aims or has two components and if one of those aims or components is identifiable as the main one, whereas the other is merely incidental, the decision under Article 218(9) TFEU must be founded on a single substantive legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant aim or component.

               With regard to an act that simultaneously pursues a number of objectives, or that has several components, which are inseparably linked without one being incidental to the other, the substantive legal basis of a decision under Article 218(9) TFEU will have to include, exceptionally, the various corresponding legal bases.

               4.2.2.Application to the present case

               Amendment 28 to Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention pursues objectives and has components in the areas of data protection and police cooperation. These elements are inseparably linked without one being incidental to the other.

               Therefore, the substantive legal basis of the proposed decision comprises the following provisions: Article 16(2) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU.

               4.3.Conclusion

               The legal basis of the proposed decision should be Article 16(2) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(9) TFEU.

               2021/0007 (NLE)

               Togra le haghaidh

               CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE

               maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh san Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta a mhéid a bhaineann le Leasú 28 ar Iarscríbhinn 9 Roinn D a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta Idirnáisiúnta

               TÁ COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,

               Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagal 16(2) agus pointe (a) d’Airteagal 87(2), i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) de,

               Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,

               De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:

               (1)Tháinig an Coinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta Idirnáisiúnta (‘Coinbhinsiún Chicago’) lena rialaítear aeriompar idirnáisiúnta, i bhfeidhm an 4 Aibreán 1947. Bunaíodh an Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta (ICAO) leis.

               (2)Is Stáit chonarthacha de Choinbhinsiún Chicago iad na Ballstáit agus is comhaltaí de ICAO iad, agus tá stádas breathnóra ag an Aontas Eorpach i gcomhlachtaí áirithe de chuid ICAO, lena n‑áirítear an Comhthionól agus comhlachtaí teicniúla eile.

               (3)De bhun phointe (l) d’Airteagal 54 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago, tá Comhairle ICAO chun caighdeáin idirnáisiúnta agus cleachtais mholta (SARPanna) a ghlacadh.

               (4)Chinn Comhairle Slándála na Náisiún Aontaithe sa Rún 2396 (2017) uaidh an 21 Nollaig 2017 (‘UNSCR 2396 (2017)’) go bhfuil Ballstáit na Náisiún Aontaithe chun an cumas a fhorbairt sonraí maidir le taifead ainmneacha paisinéirí (PNR) a bhailiú, a phróiseáil agus a anailísiú, ar mhaithe le SARPanna ICAO a chur chun cinn, agus chun a áirithiú go n‑úsáideann a n‑údaráis inniúla náisiúnta uile na sonraí PNR agus go gcomhroinntear leo iad, agus lánurraim á thabhairt do chearta an duine agus do shaoirsí bunúsacha, chun cionta sceimhlitheoireachta agus taisteal gaolmhar a chosc, a bhrath agus a imscrúdú.

               (5)D’áitigh UNSCR 2396 (2017) ar ICAO oibriú lena Stáit chonarthacha freisin chun caighdeán a bhunú maidir le sonraí PNR a bhailiú, a úsáid, a phróiseáil agus a chosaint.

               (6)
                     Leagtar amach na SARPanna maidir le PNR i Roinn D de Chaibidil 9 d’Iarscríbhinn 9 a ghabhann le Coinbhinsiún Chicago. Déantar comhlánú ar na SARPanna sin le treoir bhreise, go áirithe Doiciméad 9944 ICAO lena leagtar amach treoirlínte maidir le sonraí PNR.

               (7)An 23 Meitheamh 2020, ghlac Comhairle ICAO Leasú 28 ar Iarscríbhinn 9 a ghabhann le Coinbhinsiún Chicago ina leagtar amach, i Roinn D de, tacar nua SARPanna dá Stáit chonarthacha chun cumas a fhorbairt chun sonraí PNR a bhailiú, a úsáid, a phróiseáil agus a chosaint le haghaidh eitiltí chuig a gcríoch agus óna gcríoch, agus creat iomchuí dlíthiúil agus riaracháin mar thacaíocht léi.

               (8)I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 90 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago, ach amháin má chláraíonn tromlach de na Stáit chonarthacha a míshástacht, tiocfaidh éifeacht le Leasú 28 trí mhí tar éis an spriocdháta chun míshástacht a chlárú.

               (9)I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 38 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago, más dofheidhmithe d’aon Stát Conarthach caighdeáin nó nósanna imeachta idirnáisiúnta a chomhlíonadh ar gach bealach nó más dofheidhmithe dó a rialacháin nó a chleachtais féin a chur i gcomhréir go hiomlán le haon chaighdeán nó nós imeachta idirnáisiúnta tar éis leasú ar an gcaighdeán nó nós imeachta idirnáisiúnta sin, nó má mheasann sé é a bheith riachtanach rialacháin nó cleachtais a ghlacadh atá éagsúil ar dhóigh ar bith leis na rialacháin nó na cleachtais arna mbunú le caighdeán idirnáisiúnta, tá an Stát sin le fógra láithreach a thabhairt do ICAO faoi na difríochtaí idir a chleachtas féin agus an cleachtas arna bhunú leis an gcaighdeán idirnáisiúnta. Tá tionchar ag fógra faoi dhifríocht den sórt sin ar éifeachtaí dlíthiúla na gcaighdeán arna nglacadh ag ICAO. Dá bhrí sin, tá seasamh an Aontais maidir leis an ábhar le bunú i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 218(9) CFAE.

               (10)Tugadh fógra do Stáit chonarthacha ICAO faoi Leasú 28 trí bhíthin Litir Stáit CE 6/3-20/71. De réir na litreach Stáit sin, tá fógra le tabhairt faoi aon difríocht i dtaca leis an leasú sin agus comhlíonadh an leasaithe sin faoin 30 Eanáir 2021.

               (11)Tá comhrialacha maidir le sonraí PNR glactha ag an Aontais i dTreoir (AE) 2016/681 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
                  17
               , treoir a bhfuil raon feidhme aici a bhfuil forluí mór ann leis an réimse atá cumhdaithe ag na SARPanna atá i Leasú 28. Tá tacar cuimsitheach rialacha, go háirithe, san áireamh i dTreoir (AE) 2016/681 chun coimirciú a dhéanamh ar na cearta bunúsacha chun príobháideachais agus chun cosaint sonraí pearsanta i gcomhthéacs aeriompróirí a bheith ag aistriú sonraí PNR chuig na Ballstáit agus próiseáil sonraí den sórt sin chun cionta sceimhlitheoireachta agus coireacht thromchúiseach a chosc, a bhrath, a imscrúdú agus a ionchúiseamh.

               (12)Tá reachtaíocht maidir le cosaint sonraí pearsanta glactha ag an Aontas freisin, go háirithe Rialachán (AE) 2016/679 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
                  18
                agus Treoir (AE) 2016/680 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
                  19
               , is infheidhme maidir le próiseáil sonraí PNR ag aeriompróirí agus ag oibreoirí príobháideacha eile agus údaráis, faoi seach, atá inniúil maidir le cionta coiriúla a chosc, a imscrúdú, a bhrath nó a ionchúiseamh agus pionóis choiriúla a fhorghníomhú, lena n‑áirítear an coimirciú i gcoinne bagairtí don tsláinte phoiblí agus bagairtí don tsláinte phoiblí a chosc.

               (13)Ina theannta sin, tá dhá chomhaontú idirnáisiúnta maidir le próiseáil agus aistriú sonraí PNR i bhfeidhm faoi láthair idir an tAontas agus tríú tíortha, eadhon an Astráil
                  20
                agus na Stáit Aontaithe
                  21
               . An 26 Iúil 2017 thug Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh a Tuairim 1/15
                  22
                uaithi maidir leis an gcomhaontú idirnáisiúnta atá beartaithe i ndáil le sonraí PNR a aistriú agus a phróiseáil idir an tAontas agus Ceanada (2014).

               (14)Maidir leis na gnéithe a bhaineann le PNR de Roinn D de Chaibidil 9 d’Iarscríbhinn 9 a ghabhann le Coinbhinsiún Chicago, arna leasú le Leasú 28, baineann siad le réimse a bhfuil inniúlacht eisiach ag an Aontas ina leith de bhun Airteagal 3(2) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, toisc go bhféadfadh sé difear a dhéanamh do na comhrialacha maidir le sonraí PNR a chosaint agus a phróiseáil.

               (15)Dá réir sin, is i gcomhréir le Cinneadh (AE) 2019/2107 ón gComhairle
                  23
                a rinneadh seasamh an Aontais maidir leis an ábhar seo chun an méid a ndearnadh Leasú 28 de a mhionsaothrú. Léiríonn an seasamh sin ceanglais dhlí an Aontais maidir le cosaint sonraí pearsanta agus aistrithe sonraí PNR chuig tríú tíortha, go háirithe faoi Rialachán (AE) 2016/679, Treoir (AE) 2016/680 agus Treoir (AE) 2016/681, chomh maith leis na ceanglais sin atá mar thoradh ar Chairt um Chearta Bunúsacha an Aontais Eorpaigh mar a léirmhíníonn Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh iad, go háirithe i dTuairim 1/15. Bhí an seasamh ábhartha don phlé a bhí ar siúl i gcomhlachtaí ullmhúcháin ICAO agus don vótáil chríochnaitheach i gComhairle ICAO.

               (16)Is i gcomhréir, den chuid is mó, le seasamh an Aontais a chumhdaítear i gCinneadh (AE) 2019/2107 ón gComhairle atá na SARPanna atá i Leasú 28 agus leagtar síos coimircí uaillmhianacha maidir le cosaint sonraí, go háirithe maidir le cearta na ndaoine is ábhar do na sonraí, maoirseacht ag údarás neamhspleách, sonraí íogaire, próiseáil uathoibríoch sonraí PNR agus neamh-idirdhealú, cuspóirí a bhféadfar sonraí PNR a phróiseáil ina leith, agus sonraí PNR a choinneáil, a úsáid, a nochtadh agus a aistriú tuilleadh.

               (17)Dá bhrí sin, ós rud é go bhféadfaí dul chun cinn suntasach a dhéanamh ar an leibhéal idirnáisiúnta le Leasú 28 maidir leis na caighdeáin chun sonraí PNR a chosaint, níor cheart do Bhallstáit an Aontais aon mhíshásamh a chur in iúl faoi Airteagal 90 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago.

               (18)Mar sin féin, tá na ceanglais a eascraíonn as dlí an Aontais i ndáil le haistriú agus próiseáil sonraí PNR níos beaichte ná na SARPanna atá i Leasú 28.

               (19)Ceanglaíonn Caighdeán 9.34(a) ar Stáit chonarthacha gan bac ná cosc a chur ar aistriú sonraí PNR chuig Stát conarthach eile a chomhlíonann na SARPanna. Cé go gcoinníonn na Stáit chonarthacha, de réir Chaighdeán 9.34(b), an cumas leibhéil níos airde cosanta a choinneáil nó a thabhairt isteach i gcomhréir lena gcreat dlíthiúil agus riaracháin intíre, agus socruithe breise a dhéanamh le Stáit chonarthacha eile d’fhonn forálacha níos mionsonraithe a bhunú maidir le haistriú sonraí PNR, níl teanga reatha Chaighdeán 9.34 soiléir go leor i dtéarmaí dlíthiúla ó thaobh an Aontais Eorpaigh agus a Bhallstát de chun a áirithiú nach gcuirfear cosc ar na Ballstáit na ceanglais sin a fhorchur d’ainneoin Chaighdeán 9.34.

               (20)Sna himthosca sin, d’fhonn a áirithiú go gcomhlíonfar dlí an Aontais agus na SARPanna, is ceart do na Ballstáit fógra foirmiúil a thabhairt faoi dhifríocht de réir bhrí Airteagal 38 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago. Is ceart aon difríocht den sórt sin a bheith teoranta do Chaighdeán 9.34 i Roinn D de Chaibidil 9 d’Iarscríbhinn 9 a ghabhann leis, arna athbhreithniú le Leasú 28.

               (21)Is iomchuí, dá bhrí sin, seasamh an Aontais a bhunú dá réir sin.

               (22)Tá Éire faoi cheangal ag Treoir (AE) 2016/681 agus, dá bhrí sin, tá sí rannpháirteach i nglacadh an Chinnidh seo.

               (23)I gcomhréir le hAirteagail 1 agus 2 de Phrótacal Uimh. 22 maidir le seasamh na Danmhairge, atá i gceangal leis an gConradh ar an Aontas Eorpach agus leis an gConradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, níl an Danmhairg rannpháirteach i nglacadh an Chinnidh seo agus níl sí faoi cheangal aige ná faoi réir a chur i bhfeidhm.

               (24)Ba cheart do na Ballstáit seasamh an Aontais a chur in iúl,

               TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:

               Airteagal 1

               An seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais mar fhreagra ar Litir Stáit CE 6/3-20/71, a d'eisigh an Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta (ICAO) an 17 Iúil 2020, leagtar amach an seasamh sin san Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann leis an gCinneadh seo.

               Airteagal 2

               Déanfaidh Ballstáit an Aontais an seasamh dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 1 a chur in iúl.

               Airteagal 3

               Is chuig na Ballstáit a dhírítear an Cinneadh seo.

               Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,

                     Thar ceann na Comhairle

                     An tUachtarán

                     (1)

                        These are Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Spain.

                     (2)

                        Security Council resolution 2396 (2017) of 21 December 2017 on threats to international peace and security caused by returning foreign terrorist fighters.

                     (3)

                        ICAO, Guidelines on Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data, First Edition — 2010.

                     (4)

                        Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 132–149.

                     (5)

                        Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of Directive 2016/681 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, COM(2020) 305 final. For further details, see the Staff Working Document accompanying the Report (SWD(2020) 128 final).

                     (6)

                        Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1.

                     (7)

                        Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89.

                     (8)

                        Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger NameRecord (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, OJ L 186,14.7.2012, p. 4. The joint review and evaluation of this agreement are currently ongoing.

                     (9)

                        Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer ofpassenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security, OJ L 215, 11.8.2012, p. 5.The joint evaluation of this agreement is currently ongoing.

                     (10)

                        Opinion 1/15 of the Court (grand chamber), 26 July 2017.

                     (11)

                        Communication from the Commission on the global approach to transfers of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to third countries, COM (2010) 492 final.

                     (12)

                        Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Security Union Strategy, COM (2020) 605 final.

                     (13)

                        Council Decision (EU) 2019/2107 of 28 November 2019 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization as regards the revision of Chapter 9 of Annex 9 (Facilitation) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in respect of standards and recommended practices on passenger name record data, OJ L 318, 10.12.2019, p. 117–122.

                     (14)

                        Union Position on the reply to ICAO State letter as regards the revision of chapter 9 of annex 9 (Facilitation) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in respects of standards and recommended practices on passenger name record data Approval, ST 6744 2020 INIT.

                     (15)

                        Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 October 2014, Germany v Council, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, paragraph 64:‘[..] the European Union, while not a party to the OIV Agreement, is entitled to establish a position to be adopted on its behalf with regard to those recommendations, in view of their direct impact on the European Union’s acquis in that area.]

                     (16)

                        Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 October 2014, Germany v Council, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, paragraphs 61 to 64.

                     (17)

                        Treoir (AE) 2016/681 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 27 Aibreán 2016 maidir le húsáid sonraí as an Taifead Ainmneacha Paisinéirí (PNR) chun cionta sceimhlitheoireachta agus coireacht thromchúiseach a chosc, a bhrath, a imscrúdú agus a ionchúiseamh (IO L 119, 4.5.2016, lch. 132).

                     (18)

                        Rialachán (AE) 2016/679 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 27 Aibreán 2016 maidir le daoine nádúrtha a chosaint i ndáil le sonraí pearsanta a phróiseáil agus maidir le saorghluaiseacht sonraí den sórt sin, agus lena n‑aisghairtear Treoir 95/46/CE (An Rialachán Ginearálta maidir le Cosaint Sonraí) (IO L 119, 4.5.2016, lch. 1).

                     (19)

                        Treoir (AE) 2016/680 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 27 Aibreán 2016 i ndáil le cosaint daoine nádúrtha maidir le próiseáil sonraí pearsanta ag údaráis inniúla chun cionta coiriúla a chosc, a imscrúdú, a bhrath nó a ionchúiseamh nó chun pionóis choiriúla a fhorghníomhú, agus saorghluaiseacht sonraí den sórt sin agus lena n‐aisghairtear Cinneadh Réime 2008/977/CGB ón gComhairle (IO L 119, 4.5.2016, lch. 89).

                     (20)

                        Comhaontú idir an tAontas Eorpach agus an Astráil maidir le haeriompróirí do phróiseáil agus d’aistriú sonraí taifid ainmneacha paisinéirí (TAP) arna bhfoinsiú san Aontas Eorpach chuig Seirbhís Custam agus Cosanta Teorann na hAstráile (IO L 186, 14.7.2012, lch. 4).

                     (21)

                        Comhaontú idir Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá agus an tAontas Eorpach maidir le taifid ainmneacha paisinéirí a úsáid agus a aistriú chuig Roinn Slándála Dúiche na Stát Aontaithe (IO L 215, 11.8.2012, lch. 5).

                     (22)

                        Tuairim 1/13 ón gCúirt (Mór-Dhlísheomra) an 26 Iúil 2017 (Comhaontú idir an tAontas Eorpach agus Ceanada i dtaca le Taifid Ainmneacha Paisinéirí ), ECLI:EU:C:2017:592.

                     (23)

                        Cinneadh (AE) 2019/2107 ón gComhairle an 28 Samhain 2019 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh laistigh de Chomhairle na hEagraíochta Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta i dtaca leis an athbhreithniú ar Chaibidil 9 d’Iarscríbhinn 9 (Saoráil) a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta i leith caighdeán agus cleachtas molta i ndáil le sonraí as an taifead ainmneacha paisinéirí (IO L 318, 10.12.2019, lch. 117).

    ---documentbreak---

               AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
            An Bhruiséil,12.1.2021
            COM(2021) 16 final
            IARSCRÍBHINNÍ
            a ghabhann leis an
            Togra le haghaidh Cinneadh ón gComhairle
            maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh san Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta a mhéid a bhaineann le Leasú 28 ar Iarscríbhinn 9 Roinn D a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta Idirnáisiúnta

               IARSCRÍBHINN

               1. POSITION TO BE TAKEN

               A) As regards point 6(a) of ICAO State Letter EC 6/3-20/71:

               The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in reply to the State Letter issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization on 17 July 2020 is that no disapproval should be registered on Amendment 28 of Annex 9, Chapter 9, Section D to the Chicago Convention.

               B) As regards point 6(b) of ICAO State Letter EC 6/3-20/71:

               The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in reply to the State Letter issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization on 17 July 2020 is that a difference should be notified in relation to Standard 9.34, Annex 9, Chapter 9, Section D to the Chicago Convention.

                2. DETAILED EXPLANATION

               The difference to be filed is reflected in the following statement and table:

               “The following difference will exist on 28 February 2021 between the regulations and/or practices of [Member State] and the provisions of Annex 9, including Amendment 28:”

                        Provision

                        Details of the difference

                        Remarks

                        Amendment 28 of Annex 9, Section D, Standard 9.34

                        Category A – ‘A Contracting State’s requirement is more exacting or exceeds a SARP’

                        Standard 9.34(a) requires Contracting States not to inhibit or prevent the transfer of PNR data to another Contracting State that complies with the SARPs.

                        Standard 9.34(b) takes into account that the Contracting States shall retain the ability to maintain or introduce higher levels of protection in accordance with their domestic legal and administrative framework, and to enter into additional arrangements with other States in order to establish, in particular, more detailed provisions relating to the transfer of PNR data.

                        Under the current European Union legal framework, Member States have to comply with requirements that are in some respects more exacting than those set out in Amendment 28 for the transfers of PNR data originated in the Union to Contracting States that are not Member States of the European Union.

                        In this context, the current language of the Standard 9.34 is, from the perspective of the European Union and its Member States
                           1
                        , not sufficiently clear in legal terms in expressing that the Union Member States are not precluded from imposing those requirements notwithstanding Standard 9.34.

                        For this reason, [Member State] considers that the present difference should be notified pursuant to Article 38 of the Chicago Convention in order to allow it to apply legal requirements to PNR data transfers to Contracting States that are not Member States of the European Union, which are in some respects more exacting, without undermining the Standards laid out in Amendment 28.

                        [Member State] confirms that in the absence of the possibility of ensuring compliance with such requirements, therefore, transfers by air carriers cannot take place in accordance with Union law.

                        [Member State] would like to stress the importance of the work made by ICAO and its contracting States in updating the Standards and Recommended Practices on PNR and welcome the adoption of Amendment 28 by the ICAO Council in June 2020.

                        [Member State] underlines that the present difference – filed under Category A as per point 2.1 of Attachment E of State Letter 2020 – 71 – is intended to communicate with due transparency to ICAO and its Contracting States how European Union Member States will implement the Standards in accordance with the European Union legal framework.

                        According to the European Union legal framework, the transfer of PNR data originated in the Union from air carriers to the competent authorities of a third country is lawful if certain requirements, which are in some respects more exacting than those set out in Amendment 28, are met.

                        Such requirements stem from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 7, 8 and 52, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Opinion 1/15 on the envisaged PNR agreement with Canada and from Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

                     (1)

                        Text proposed by Member States of the European Union to the ICAO Council in reply to EC 6/3-20/14, dated 25 February 2020, on the draft amendment:

                     “9.34: Contracting States shall:

                        (a) not inhibit or prevent the transfer of PNR data by an aircraft operator or other relevant party, nor sanction, impose penalties or create unreasonable obstacles on aircraft operators or other relevant parties that transfer PNR data to another Contracting State provided that Contracting States’ PNR data system is compliant with the Standards contained in Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9; and
                     but
                     (b) equally, retain the ability to introduce or maintain higher levels of protection of PNR data, in accordance with their legal and administrative framework, and to enter into additional arrangements with other Contracting States, in particular to: promote collective security; achieve higher levels of protection of PNR data, including on data transfers retention; or to establish more detailed provisions relating to the transfer of PNR data, provided those measures do not undermine otherwise conflict with the Standards contained in Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9.”


               AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
            An Bhruiséil,3.5.2021
            COM(2021) 233 final
            2021/0120(NLE)
            Togra le haghaidh
            CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
            maidir leis an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa cheathrú seisiún is seachtó den Chomhthionól Eagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte

               MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN

               1.Ábhar an togra

               Baineann an togra seo le bunú an tseasaimh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais ag an gceathrú seisiún is seachtó den Chomhthionól Domhanda Sláinte (WHA) i ndáil le Cinneadh a ghlacadh atá beartaithe maidir leis na módúlachtaí/próiseas chun conradh idirnáisiúnta a bhunú maidir leis an gcomhrac in aghaidh paindéimí.

               2.Comhthéacs an togra

               2.1.An Eagraíocht Dhomhanda Sláinte

               Bunaíodh an Eagraíocht Dhomhanda Sláinte (EDS) ina sainghníomhaireacht sláinte de chuid na Náisiún Aontaithe i gcomhréir le téarmaí Airteagal 57 de Chairt na Náisiún Aontaithe. Tháinig Bunreacht
                  1
                na hEagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte i bhfeidhm an 7 Aibreán 1948 agus sainítear príomhchuspóir na heagraíochta ann ‘an leibhéal sláinte is airde is féidir a chinntiú do gach pobal’.

               Tá stádas breathnóra ag an Aontas Eorpach laistigh de EDS. Bunaíodh an stádas sin trí mhalartú litreacha a foilsíodh san Iris Oifigiúil an 4 Eanáir 2001
                  2
               . Áiríodh ar an malartú ‘Memorandum concerning the framework and arrangements for cooperation between the World Health Organization and the Commission of the European Communities’ [Meabhrán maidir leis an gcreat agus na socruithe le haghaidh comhar idir an Eagraíocht Dhomhanda Sláinte agus Coimisiún na gComhphobal Eorpach]. Tá Ballstáit uile an Aontais ina gcomhaltaí de EDS.

               2.2.An Comhthionól Domhanda Sláinte

               Is é an Comhthionól Domhanda Sláinte príomhchomhlacht rialaithe EDS. Is iad príomhfheidhmeanna an Chomhthionóil Dhomhanda Sláinte beartais EDS a chinneadh, an tArd‑Stiúrthóir a cheapadh, beartais airgeadais a mhaoirsiú, agus an buiséad clár atá beartaithe a athbhreithniú agus a fhormheas.

               Bíonn an Comhthionól Domhanda Sláinte á thionól gach bliain sa Ghinéiv, san Eilvéis. Beidh an ceathrú seisiún is seachtó den Chomhthionól á thionól go fíorúil ón 24 Bealtaine go dtí an 1 Meitheamh 2021.

               De réir Airteagal 59 de Bhunreacht EDS, tá vóta amháin ag gach Comhalta sa Chomhthionól Domhanda Sláinte. Is trí thromlach na gComhaltaí atá i láthair agus a vótálann a dhéantar cinntí, ach amháin i líon beag cásanna mar a leagtar amach in Airteagal 60 den Bhunreacht, lena sonraítear go bhfuil gá le tromlach dhá thrian. Go praiticiúil, déanfar gach iarracht teacht ar chomhaontú trí chomhthoil. Níl aon cheart vótála ag an Aontas Eorpach.

               Faoi Airteagal 19 de Bhunreacht EDS, tugtar an t‑údarás don Chomhthionól Domhanda Sláinte coinbhinsiúin nó comhaontuithe a ghlacadh i ndáil le hábhar ar bith a thagann faoi inniúlacht na hEagraíochta.

               2.3.An gníomh atá beartaithe sa cheathrú seisiún is seachtó den Chomhthionól Domhanda Sláinte

               I mí na Bealtaine 2021, le linn a cheathrú seisiún is seachtó, meastar go nglacfaidh an Comhthionól Domhanda Sláinte cinneadh nós imeachta maidir le modúlachtaí/próiseas chun conradh idirnáisiúnta a bhunú maidir leis an gcomhrac i gcoinne paindéimí. Go sonrach, is é is cuspóir don chinneadh Cruinniú Idir-rialtasach a bhunú chun Creat‑Choinbhinsiún EDS um ullmhacht agus freagairt phaindéimeach a dhréachtú agus a chaibidliú lena mheas ag an gComhthionól Sláinte Domhanda faoi Airteagal 19 de Bhunreacht EDS.

               3.An seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais

               Tá an tAontas agus a chuid Ballstát ar thús cadhnaíochta sna hiarrachtaí idirnáisiúnta chun an tslándáil dhomhanda sláinte a neartú agus tá an Eagraíocht Dhomhanda Sláinte ar thús cadhnaíochta freisin, go háirithe maidir le hullmhacht agus freagairt d’éigeandálaí sláinte, ar bhonn na gConclúidí
                  3
                ón gComhairle i mí na Samhna 2020 maidir le ról an Aontais i neartú EDS inter alia.

               Tá plé á dhéanamh faoi láthair ar an togra chun conradh idirnáisiúnta a thabhairt i gcrích maidir le paindéimí i gcomhthéacs na n‑iarrachtaí leanúnacha idirnáisiúnta chun slándáil dhomhanda sláinte a threisiú i bhfianaise na gceachtanna a foghlaimíodh ón bpaindéim. Is é an aidhm fhoriomlán ba cheart a bheith ag Conradh den sórt sin gealltanas polaitiúil agus dlíthiúil do struchtúr domhanda sláinte feabhsaithe a áirithiú.

               Dá mbeadh an tAontas rannpháirteach i bhforbairt conartha den sórt sin, bheadh sin i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 21(1) CAE lena ndearbhaítear an méid seo a leanas: ‘Féachfaidh an tAontas le caidrimh a fhorbairt agus comhpháirtíochtaí a thógáil le tríú tíortha agus le heagraíochtaí idirnáisiúnta, réigiúnacha nó domhanda a pháirtíonn na prionsabail chéanna dá dtagraítear sa chéad fhomhír.  Cuirfidh sé réitigh iltaobhacha ar fhadhbanna coiteanna chun cinn, go háirithe faoi chuimsiú na Náisiún Aontaithe.’ D’athdhearbhaigh an Chomhairle Eorpach
                  4
                i mí Feabhra 2021 go bhfuil sí tiomanta do ‘slándáil dhomhanda sláinte a chur chun cinn, lena n‑áirítear tríd an Eagraíocht Dhomhanda Sláinte a neartú agus trí obair a dhéanamh chun conradh idirnáisiúnta maidir le paindéimí a bhaint amach faoi chuimsiú na heagraíochta sin’.

               Cé nach ndearnadh cinneadh faoina raon feidhme beacht go fóill, is é atá beartaithe leis an gConradh idirnáisiúnta aghaidh a thabhairt ar bhagairtí tromchúiseacha trasteorann ar an tsláinte. Is dócha go mbainfidh an cuspóir sin le réimsí beartais atá fréamhaithe faoi Theideal XIV de Chuid III CFAE ach d’fhéadfadh sé baint a bheith aige freisin le roinnt airteagal eile den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, an méid seo a leanas mar shampla:

               –Rioscaí zónóiseacha a chosc agus a bhainistiú mar chuid de cur chuige na hAon Sláinte Amháin, lena gceanglaítear naisc a dhéanamh le conarthaí comhshaoil maidir le saincheisteanna amhail bithéagsúlacht agus trádáil i speicis atá i mbaol, a bhféadfadh tionchar a bheith acu ar Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 338/97 ón gComhairle an 9 Nollaig 1996 maidir le speicis fána agus flóra fiáine a chosaint trí thrádáil iontu a rialú agus ar Rialacháin eile chomh maith;

               –Córas struchtúrtha chun pataiginí, seichimh ghéiniteacha agus na tairbhí a eascraíonn astu chun críocha na sláinte poiblí a chomhroinnt (arb é reachtaíocht ábhartha an Aontais é Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 511/2014 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 16 Aibreán 2014 i ndáil le bearta comhlíonta d’úsáideoirí ó Phrótacal Nagoya maidir le rochtain ar acmhainní géiniteacha agus na tairbhí a bhaineann leis na hacmhainní sin mar aon lena n‑úsáid a roinnt go cóir agus go cothromasach san Aontas);

               –Cearta an duine agus cosaint príobháideachais, go háirithe i bhfianaise na teicneolaíochta faireachais, na hintleachta saorga agus úsáid mórshonraí chun críocha na sláinte poiblí (e.g. Rialachán (AE) 2016/679 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 27 Aibreán 2016 maidir le daoine nádúrtha a chosaint i ndáil le sonraí pearsanta a phróiseáil agus maidir le saorghluaiseacht sonraí den sórt sin); agus

               –Bearta chun cur chun feidhme agus comhlíontacht a chur chun cinn, e.g. próisis athbhreithnithe piaraí agus saineolaithe, sásraí cuntasachta frithpháirtí, socruithe fíorúcháin agus cigireachta, agus próisis um réiteach díospóidí.

               –Leis an gConradh déanfar difear freisin do Chinneadh Uimh. 1082/2013/AE ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 22 Deireadh Fómhair 2013 maidir le bagairtí tromchúiseacha trasteorann don tsláinte agus don Rialachán a bheidh ann amach anseo maidir le bagairtí sláinte trasteorann.

               I bhfianaise an mhéid thuas agus an difear is dócha a d’fhéadfadh reachtaíocht an Aontais atá ann faoi láthair a dhéanamh do réimsí éagsúla de ghníomhaíocht an Aontais, tá sé ríthábhachtach go n‑áiritheofar rannpháirtíocht an Aontais i gcomhar leis na Ballstáit. Ba cheart go dtreorófaí a seasamh leis na prionsabail seo a leanas sa phlé a dhéanfaidh siad ag an gComhthionól Domhanda Sláinte amach anseo maidir le Cinneadh a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ann lena mbunaítear próiseas chun Creat‑Choinbhinsiún EDS maidir le hUllmhacht agus Freagairt a dhréachtú agus a chaibidliú:

               a.Ba cheart an deis a bheith ag an Aontas a bheith rannpháirteach ina pháirtí conarthach sa Chonradh d’fhonn tacú go hiomlán le próiseas EDS a bhunú le haghaidh Creat‑Choinbhinsiún nua maidir le hUllmhacht agus Freagairt Phaindéimeach.

               b.Leis an gcinneadh ón gComhthionól Domhanda Sláinte, lena leagtar amach gnéithe nós imeachta na caibidlíochta, ba cheart an deis a bheith ag an Aontas Eorpach a bheith lán‑rannpháirteach sa phróiseas caibidlíochta.

               c.Ní mór don Chreat‑Choinbhinsiún nua an creat idirnáisiúnta atá ann faoi láthair a neartú, a bheith comhlántach leis, agus breisluach a thabhairt dó, an creat idirnáisiúnta chun éigeandálaí sláinte a chosc agus freagairt dóibh, agus an toradh a bheidh ar an gCruinniú Mullaigh an 21 Bealtaine á chur san áireamh. I gcomhréir leis sin, ba cheart d’aon Chreat‑Choinbhinsiún nua cur chun feidhme na Rialachán Sláinte Idirnáisiúnta (IHR) a chomhlánú agus a threisiú, agus aghaidh a thabhairt go héifeachtach ar aon bhearna sna Rialacháin sin.

               d.Ba cheart a chur san áireamh sa phlé faoi Chreat‑Choinbhinsiún an toradh ó na painéil neamhspleácha
                  5
                a dhéanann athbhreithniú ar an bhfreagairt phaindéimeach idirnáisiúnta faoi stiúir EDS, chun a áirithiú go bhfuil sí bunaithe go daingean ar an bhfianaise agus go léirítear iontu na ceachtanna a foghlaimíodh ón taithí dhomhanda maidir le dul i ngleic le paindéim COVID-19.

               4.Bunús dlí

               4.1.Bunús dlí nós imeachta

               4.1.1.Prionsabail

               In Airteagal 218(9) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh (CFAE) déantar foráil maidir le cinntí lena leagtar síos ‘na seasaimh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais i gcomhlacht arna chur ar bun le comhaontú nuair a iarrtar ar an gcomhlacht sin gníomhartha a ghlacadh a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo, seachas gníomhartha lena bhforlíonfar nó lena leasófar creat institiúideach an chomhaontaithe.’

               Tá feidhm ag Airteagal 218(9) CFAE, gan beann ar cibé acu atá an tAontas ina chomhalta den chomhlacht nó ina pháirtí sa chomhaontú
                  6
               , nó nach bhfuil.

               Áirítear ar na ‘gníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo’ gníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo de bhua rialacha an dlí idirnáisiúnta lena rialaítear an comhlacht i gceist. Áirítear freisin ionstraimí nach bhfuil éifeacht cheangailteach leo faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta, ach a d’fhéadfadh ‘tionchar cinntitheach a bheith acu ar ábhar na reachtaíochta a ghlacfaidh reachtóir an Aontais Eorpaigh’
                  7
               .

               4.1.2.Cur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcás seo

               Is comhlacht é an Comhthionól Sláinte Domhanda a bunaíodh le comhaontú, eadhon Bunreacht na hEagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte, a síníodh i Nua-Eabhrac an 22 Iúil 1946.

               Is gníomh a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla aige atá sa chinneadh a iarrfar ar an gComhairle Ghinearálta a ghlacadh, an cinneadh maidir le módúlachtaí. Beidh an gníomh atá beartaithe ceangailteach faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta le haghaidh Chomhaltaí na hEagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte i gcomhréir le hAirteagail 18 agus 60 de Bhunreacht na hEagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte. Tá éifeachtaí dlíthiúla ag an ngníomh atá beartaithe freisin toisc go gcinnfear leis an mbeidh sé de chumas ag an Aontas Eorpach páirt iomlán a ghlacadh i ndréachtú agus i gcaibidlíocht chreat‑choinbhinsiúin EDS maidir le hullmhacht agus freagairt phaindéimeach lena mheas ag an gComhthionól Domhanda Sláinte faoi Airteagal 19 de Bhunreacht EDS agus a bheith ina pháirtí sa Choinbhinsiún seo agus ina eagraíocht um lánpháirtíocht eacnamaíoch réigiúnach.

               Beidh tionchar ag an gCreat‑Choinbhinsiún ar fheidhmiú inniúlachtaí an Aontais agus, ag brath ar a raon feidhme, ar reachtaíocht an Aontais i réimsí amhail sláinte, trádáil, saorghluaiseacht, cosaint sonraí, an margadh inmheánach, comhar um fhorbairt, agus d’fhéadfadh gach ceann díobh a bheith ábhartha faoin gCreat‑Choinbhinsiún.

               Leis an ngníomh atá beartaithe ní fhorlíontar ná ní leasaítear creat institiúideach an Chomhaontaithe.

               Dá bhrí sin, is é Airteagal 218(9) CFAE an bunús dlí nós imeachta le haghaidh an chinnidh atá beartaithe.

               4.2.Bunús dlí substainteach

               4.2.1.Prionsabail

               Braitheann an bunús substaintiúil dlí do chinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE go príomha ar chuspóir agus ábhar an ghnímh atá beartaithe a bhfuiltear ag glacadh seasamh thar ceann an Aontais ina leith. Má tá dhá aidhm ag an ngníomh atá beartaithe nó má tá dhá chomhpháirt ann agus más féidir ceann de na haidhmeanna nó de na comhpháirteanna sin a shainaithint mar phríomhaidhm nó mar phríomh‑chomhpháirt agus an ceann eile mar aidhm nó mar chomhpháirt theagmhasach, ní mór an cinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE a bhunú ar bhunús dlí substainteach aonair, is é sin an bunús dlí a éilítear de réir na príomhaidhme nó na príomh‑chomhpháirte.

               4.2.2.Cur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcás seo

               Is é a bhaineann príomhchuspóir agus ábhar an ghnímh atá beartaithe le comhar idirnáisiúnta atá ag méadú i rith an ama i réimse na hullmhachta agus na freagartha paindéimí laistigh de chóras na Náisiún Aontaithe, arb é is aidhm dó ‘réitigh iltaobhacha a chur chun cinn le haghaidh fadhbanna coiteanna, go háirithe faoi chuimsiú na Náisiún Aontaithe.’ Go háirithe, is é is príomhaidhm dó dul i ngleic le móraicídí trasteorann agus le bagairtí tromchúiseacha trasteorann ar an tsláinte.

               Dá bhrí sin, is é Airteagal 168(3) agus (5) CFAE bunús dlí substainteach an nós imeachta don chinneadh atáthar a bheartú.

               4.3.Conclúid

               Ba cheart Airteagal 168(3) agus (5) CFAE, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) de CFAE, a bheith ina mbunús dlí don chinneadh atáthar a mholadh.

               2021/0120 (NLE)

               Togra le haghaidh

               CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE

               maidir leis an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa cheathrú seisiún is seachtó den Chomhthionól Eagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte

               TÁ COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,

               Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagal 168(3) agus (5) i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) de,

               Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,

               De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:

               (1)Sonraítear in Airteagal 21, mír 1, CAE, go bhféachfaidh an tAontas le caidrimh a fhorbairt agus comhpháirtíochtaí a thógáil le tríú tíortha agus le heagraíochtaí idirnáisiúnta, réigiúnacha nó domhanda a pháirtíonn na prionsabail dá dtagraítear sa chéad fhomhír. Cuirfidh sé réitigh iltaobhacha ar fhadhbanna coiteanna chun cinn, go háirithe faoi chuimsiú na Náisiún Aontaithe.

               (2)Tháinig Bunreacht na hEagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte (‘an Comhaontú’) i bhfeidhm an 7 Aibreán 1948.

               (3)De bhun Airteagal 60 den Chomhaontú, féadfaidh an Comhthionól Domhanda Sláinte cinntí a ghlacadh trí thromlach Chomhaltaí na hEagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte (EDS) atá i láthair agus a vótálann.

               (4)Le linn a cheathrú seisiún is seachtó a thosóidh ar an 24 Bealtaine 2021, glacfaidh Comhthionól Domhanda Sláinte le cinneadh maidir le Cruinniú Idir-rialtasach a bhunú chun Creat‑Choinbhinsiún EDS i ndáil le hUllmhacht agus Freagairt Phaindéimeach a dhréachtú agus a chaibidliú.

               (5)Is iomchuí an seasamh a bhunú a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais sa Chomhthionól Domhanda Sláinte, ós rud é go gcinnfear le cinneadh an Chomhthionóil Dhomhanda Sláinte cumas an Aontais Eorpaigh a bheith rannpháirteach i ndréachtú agus i gcaibidlíocht Chreat‑Choinbhinsiún EDS maidir le hUllmhacht agus Freagairt Phaindéimeach agus d’fhéadfadh an tAontas a bheith ina pháirtí ann agus ina eagraíocht um lánpháirtíocht eacnamaíoch réigiúnach.

               (6)Is amhlaidh is mó a bheidh an comhar idirnáisiúnta a dhéanfar i bhfreagairt do phaindéimí laistigh de chóras na Náisiún Aontaithe ach an tAontas Eorpach a bheith lán‑rannpháirteach i ndréachtú agus i gcaibidliú Creat‑Choinbhinsiún de chuid EDS maidir le hUllmhacht agus Freagairt Phaindéimeach agus dá bhféadfaí aontachas an Aontais leis an gCoinbhinsiún a chur i gcrích.

               (7)Tá Ballstáit an Aontais atá ina gcomhaltaí den Chomhthionól Domhanda Sláinte chun seasamh an Aontais a chur in iúl.

               TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:

               Airteagal 1

               Is mar seo a leanas a bheidh an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais sa cheathrú seisiún is seachtó den Chomhthionól Domhanda Sláinte:

               Tacaíonn an tAontas Eorpach le próiseas de chuid na hEagraíochta Domhanda Sláinte a bhunú le haghaidh Creat‑Choinbhinsiún nua maidir le hUllmhacht agus Freagairt Phaindéimeach agus ní mór an deis a bheith aige a bheith rannpháirteach agus é ina pháirtí conarthach i gconradh den sórt sin.

               Ní mór don chinneadh ón gComhthionól Domhanda Sláinte, lena leagtar amach gnéithe nós imeachta na caibidlíochta, an deis a thabhairt don Aontas a bheith lán‑rannpháirteach sa phróiseas caibidlíochta, i bhfianaise aontachas an Aontais a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ann leis an gCoinbhinsiún agus é ina eagraíocht um lánpháirtíocht eacnamaíoch réigiúnach.

               Ba cheart é sin a bhaint amach trí thagairtí sonracha a chur isteach i gcorp téacs an chinnidh lena soiléirítear go mbeidh aon chomhlacht idir-rialtasach a chuirfear ar bun chun an Coinbhinsiún a dhréachtú agus a chaibidliú oscailte le haghaidh eagraíochtaí um lánpháirtíocht eacnamaíoch réigiúnach a bheith rannpháirteach ann.

               Airteagal 2

               Is iad Ballstáit an Aontais atá ina gcomhaltaí den Eagraíocht Dhomhanda Sláinte a chuirfidh in iúl an seasamh dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 1 agus iad ag gníomhú dóibh go comhpháirteach thar ceann an Aontais

               Airteagal 3

               Is chuig na Ballstáit a dhírítear an Cinneadh seo.

               Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,

                     Thar ceann na Comhairle

                     An tUachtarán

                     (1)

                  BUNDOICIMÉID (who.int)

                     (2)

                  https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/eu_world/docs/exchange_of_letters_2001.pdf

                     (3)

                        https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12276-2020-INIT/en/pdf

                     (4)

                        Ráiteas ó chomhaltaí na Comhairle Eorpaí, 25-26 Feabhra 2021

                     (5)

                        Go sonrach an Painéal Neamhspleách ar Ullmhacht agus Freagairt Phaindéimeach, Coiste Athbhreithnithe IHR agus Coiste Neamhspleách Maoirseachta agus Comhairleach le haghaidh chlár EDS um éigeandálaí sláinte

                     (6)

                        Breithiúnas ón gCúirt Bhreithiúnais an 7 Deireadh Fómhair 2014, an Ghearmáin v an Chomhairle, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, mír 64

                     (7)

                        Breithiúnas ón gCúirt Bhreithiúnais an 7 Deireadh Fómhair 2014, an Ghearmáin v an Chomhairle, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, míreanna 61 go 64