(Montreal, 2–5 April 2002) ICAO Doc FAL/4-IP/8.
400Ibid. at clause 3.2.5 and 3.2.6: “At check-in, the airline prints the passenger’s bio data and .ight
numberonaspecialAustralianIncomingPassengerCardwith theword ‘EXPRESS’indicated.The
cardalsohasamagneticstripthatis codedwithanidenti.ertoretrievethatdataonarrivalinAustralia.
On arrival in Australia, the passenger will be directed to the appropriate processing lanes by use of
dynamic signage and Customs marshals who are on-hand. APP passengers using the Express lanes
are expected to be cleared in about half the time of other passengers who are not APP”.
The APP/ETA system has been acceptedbyair carriers as it meets the individual need ofeach and every one of them. As some carriers have voluntarily participated to this plan, it is of the government wish to implement mandatory procedures for APP.401 According to Australian Customs Service, APP gives a quanti.able reduc-tion in undocumented travels and therefore reducing the possibility of being imposed .nes by other Contracting States.
Qantas Airways, Australia’s leading air carrier, expressed a similar concern to the one of British Airwaysbut asked the US Customs Agency for further precisions on the interim rule pertaining to PNR information. It has concerns pertaining to the legislation when it permits sharing of all relevant information to the different Federal Agencies.402 Furthermore, Qantas has asked the authorities to sign an agreement in order to prevent the US Customs Service403 to send such data to an undetermined amount of agencies.
6. The German and Swiss Positions
According to present privacy laws, certain data is protected by the Federal Data Protection Act (“Bundesdatenschutzgesetz,” BDSG)404 and requires special permis-sion from eachairobia before permitting access to suchinformation by other States. Furthermore, alldata must be deleted from any banks after a certain amount of time. In response to this legislation, Germany’s leading air carrier, die Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, had informed the US Customs Service of these legislative impe-diments and was awaiting assistance in order to comply. According to the in-house legal counsel department, it appears that this could be implemented throughout the year of 2003.405 Unless clear amendments can be made, violations of the Federal Data Protection Act can be of substantial .nancial and legal consequence.406
401Permanent Technical Committee, “Review of the WCO/IATA Guidelines on Advance Passen-
ger Information” WCO Doc PW0045E1 (Brussels, 20 August 2001).
402Permanent Technical Committee, “Review of the WCO/IATA Guidelines on Advance Passen-ger Information” WCO Doc PW0045E1 (Brussels, 20 August 2001) at clause 4.2.
403Qantas Airways letter dated 22 August 2002 (not published): “Prima facie, Qantas has not identi.ed any incompatibility between USCS Passenger Name Record (PNR) requirements and Australia’s national protection laws. However the statement in the CFR that ‘PNR information that is made available to Customs electronically may, upon request, be shared with other Federal Agencies,’ requires further clari.cation. Speci.cally, whether or not carriers will be noti.ed when and with whom this information is being shared and how the integrity of the data will be maintained during this process”.
404Bundesdatenschutz, online: http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/recht/de/bdsg/bdsg1.htm#absch1
(date accessed: 17 January 2003).
405Unof.cial letter dated 30 August 2002by the Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft: “Imple-mentation by Lufthansa in the .rst quarter of 2003 appears feasible, provided that the present legal
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(113)
