Green Pass, Ceccanti (Pd): “It is important that the government clarifies whether it considers these observations to be justified”
According to Privacy Guarantor, “with the Green Pass, positive vaccinates evade controls“. The article written for Affaritaliani.it by Paolo Becchi and Giuseppe Palma (click here to read it) arrives in the Chamber of the Chamber and is quoted by the deputy of the Democratic Party Stefano Ceccanti, jurist and constitutionalist. What should the Draghi government do now? “Look, I do not pronounce myself on the merits, I only say that an opinion has arrived from the privacy guarantor who points out some critical issues, which have been highlighted by Becchi and Palma”, he explains to Affaritaliani.it Ceccanti himself.
READ THE AFFARITALIANI.IT SCOOP |
“This opinion came after the Legislation Committee had already expressed itself. It is important that the government clarifies whether it considers these observations to be justified at least in part and, in this case, since the decree is about to expire and therefore cannot be modified, how do you plan to take action later. If the reasons are unfounded, otherwise tell us what you plan to do. For these reasons, as members of the committee, we have prepared an agenda recalling the main observations and asking the government for its opinion “, explains the constitutionalist Dem.
******
THE ORDER OF THE DAY
C 3363 – DL 127/2021
The room,
given that:
on 11 November, following the expression of the opinion by the Legislation Committee, a report was received on the provision from the Guarantor for the protection of personal data which relates to a relevant profile in the formulation of the text;
the report notes in fact that the provisions, introduced in the Senate, regarding the possibility of delivering the “COVID-19 green certification” for its entire duration of validity to the employer, with consequent exemption from controls (Article 1, paragraph 1, paragraph Article 9-quinquies, paragraph 5 and article 3, paragraph 1, paragraph article 9-septies, paragraph 5), present some critical issues with reference to their scope of application;
In the first place, the report argues, “the envisaged exemption from controls – while the green certification is valid – risks substantially circumventing the overall public health purposes underlying the“ green pass ”system. It is, in fact, effective for epidemiological purposes to the extent that the certificate is subject to periodic checks on its persistent validity; this is made possible by the constant updating, through the national DGC platform, of the certificates based on any diagnostic results that may have occurred. The absence of verifications during the period of validity of the certificate would not allow, on the other hand, to detect any positive condition occurred in the holder of the certificate “;
in addition, the report continues “the envisaged legitimacy of the conservation (of copies) of green certifications contrasts with Recital 48 of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 which, in establishing a framework of homogeneous guarantees, also in terms of data protection, for the use of green certifications in Europe, provides that “Where the certificate is used for non-medical purposes, the personal data accessed during the verification process must not be stored, according to the provisions of this regulation “;
finally, again on the basis of the report “from the data relating to the expiry of the certification can […] it is also easy to understand the prerequisite for issuing the same, each of which (swab, healing, vaccination) determines a different period of validity of the green pass. In this way, therefore, a choice such as that on vaccination – so strongly linked to the intimate convictions of the person – would be deprived of the necessary guarantees of confidentiality “;
it therefore appears necessary to investigate how the aforementioned provisions find application in the event of supervening positivity and in the light of recital 48 of Regulation (EU) 2021 / 953-:
commits the Government
to evaluate the application effects of the aforementioned provisions also in order to introduce, if necessary, the appropriate regulatory changes
Hon. Butti
******
Always Ceccanti adds: “We then prepared a further agenda which corresponds instead to the published opinion and which invites us to avoid bringing a decree expiring a few days after the expiry date to the second chamber.“.
******
THE SECOND AGENDA
C 3363 – DL 127/2021
The room,
given that:
the decree-law in question was sent to the Chamber on 11 November last, nine days after the expiry, on 20 November, of the deadline for conversion;
in this regard, the Committee for Legislation, in its opinion on the provision, last 11 November, recommended to the Legislator and the Government “to start a reflection in order to avoid in the future the concentration of the examination of the bills converting the decrees – law in the first branch of examination, with a view to ensuring compliance with a reasonable balance in parliamentary procedures, also referred to by the Constitutional Court in ordinance no. 60 of 2020. “;
the same recommendation was made by the Committee in the opinion delivered in the session of 7 October 2020 on the draft law C 2700 for the conversion of decree-law no. 104 of 2020, transmitted by the Senate one week before the deadline for conversion;
in the current Legislature only four of the eighty converted decree-laws have been modified during the second reading (data updated to 31 October 2021); moreover, the time of the first reading tends to be prolonged; in fact, for example, most recently the decree-law no. 121 of 2021, in first reading in the Chamber, was sent to the Senate on October 29, 2021, eleven days from the deadline for conversion; the decree-law n. 105 of 2021, in first reading in the Chamber, was sent to the Senate on 9 September 2021, twelve days after the deadline for conversion; the decree-law n. 80 of 2021, in first reading in the Senate, was sent to the Chamber on July 30, 2021, nine days after the expiry of the deadline for conversion;
however, a more in-depth examination of the first reading does not seem to be matched by this expansion of time, at least in the formal forums; in particular, the amendments to the provision in question were voted on by the competent Senate Commission in just three sessions, concentrated on 3 and 9 November last;
it is necessary to identify, also in view of the approval of the legislative measures required by the PNRR and while taking into account the situation determined by the current health emergency, more orderly methods of legislating, which avoid excessive compression of the time for examining the measures -:
commits the Government
to work, through the necessary dialogue with Parliament, with a view to better planning the government legislative initiative, in order to allow for greater balance in parliamentary procedures.
Hon. Tomasi, Butti
#Objections #Guarantor #Pass #Business #bomb #explodes #Parliament