The opinion can be divided into two parts depending on the structure of the MOU application, each focusing on the procedural aspects and the substance. The first relates to the legal basis for the Council`s decision on the signing of the agreement (this decision is necessary in accordance with the EUF procedure for the adoption of international agreements between the EU and third countries). This last point deals with the merits of the agreement and examines its compatibility with the CFREU. When assessing a new PNR agreement between the European Union and a third country, it remains important to reflect on a fundamental concern that is reflected in all these agreements. With their graduation, lawmakers require airlines and computerized reservation systems to provide foreign law enforcement with PNR data from all their passengers, almost all innocent and ignorant citizens. This in itself remains a rather unusual phenomenon and requires very careful consideration. While acceptable, it requires not only a legal basis to agree, but also irrefutable proof that the agreement is necessary and proportionate and that the safeguards are sufficiently developed, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. [9] 1. The PNR Directive, and in particular the PNR agreements with Australia and the United States, contains non-specific language that does not adequately describe the types of data collected. This may result in excessive amounts of data that are not necessary or proportionate for the purposes of the directive.

It is therefore necessary to ensure greater protection of the privacy of passengers. The PNR agreements with the United States and Australia suffer from a number of shortcomings. With regard to the EU PNR Directive, it seems clear that it does not meet the requirements of the ECJ, at least in part. The European Commission, as guardian of the treaties, must take urgent measures to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU PNR Directive and agreements. On 11 April, WP29 asked the Commission to take action and revise passenger records (PNR) data on the basis of the 01/15 opinion of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In its opinion on the EU PNR agreement with Canada, the ECJ found that the proposed agreement was partially incompatible with Articles 7, 8, 21 and 52 of the Eu Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, no significant progress has been made on this agreement, nor has there been any progress in the PNR agreements with Australia and the United States or the EU PNR Directive. The EU has already signed agreements allowing EU air carriers to transfer PNR data to the US and Australia.