|
Schengen Information System |
Last update: 10 April 2005
|
| | LIBE |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Last update: 10 April 2005
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
 |  |
||
| INTRODUCTION |
|
 | | |
|
| BACKGROUND |
|
The Schengen Information System (SIS) is a computer system used in the framework of implementing the Schengen area. It is one of the countervailing measures intended to ensure a level of protection that at least equals the previous level. In fact, one of the conditions for applying the Agreement signed 14 June 1985 was that the abolition of the internal frontiers should not endanger the security of the Member Sates. It is legally funded on the Convention of 19 June 1990. The SIS is the backbone of the Schengen mechanism. For this reason, the States waited until it was operating effectively before abolishing border controls. SIS has a twofold objective:
The management of migratory flows is another goal of the Schengen Information System, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Convention. This function has taken on growing importance in the wake of Member States' adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings on 28 February 2002 and of the Action Plan for the management of external borders on 13 June 2002. The SIS was integrated as an element of the Schengen acquis within the framework of the European Union on 1 May 1999. Because there is no agreement regarding its legal basis, the system temporarily rests on the provisions of the third pillar by virtue of a protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty. Seven States took part in launching it. It has been progressively extended to other countries as the Schengen area has grown. Currently, it is in effect in 13 Member States, and in Norway and Iceland. It will soon be implemented in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Originally conceived to allow the integration of a maximum of 18 States, the need to include applicant countries, along with the increasing obsolescence of the system, prompted the States to launch a technical study with the goal of defining the architecture and the technical characteristics of a second-generation system, called the SIS II. An invitation to tender for SIS II was issued in August 2003 and development of the system is expected to get under way in January 2005. In a communication of 11 December 2003, the Commission estimates the cost of development, based on the results of the feasibility study, at 28 million euro. The real cost will depend on the choice of the system architecture. |
| | |
|
| ANALYSIS |
|
The SIS has a shared database characterised by a specific architecture. (1.) It is a well-regulated system: access to it is safeguarded, the categories of alert that can be integrated are limited, and the legislation regarding its consultation procedure is very complex and very strict. In addition, the States have set up an entity called the "Joint Supervisory Body", which is responsible for ensuring proper application of the texts related to the protection of the information. (2.) 1. The SIS Architecture The SIS is an interconnection of national files accumulating shared data, which is provided and consulted by the authorities of the various Member States. In fact, although the system is European, the information is still national. The N-SIS can exchange information needed for the proper working of the SIS, using a permanent physical structure available 24 hours a day, without having to go through the central system. These structures, the SIRENE Offices (Supplementary Information Request at the National Entry), make up the system's human interface.
The SIRENE offices are connected to each other through a protected telecommunication system: the SISNET, which has been operating since 2001. 2. A Well-regulated System The Convention authorises only those national authorities with jurisdiction for carrying out border surveillance and identity checks on national territory to consult the SIS. Visa services also have access to the SIS, but only with regard to alerts for third-country nationals barred from entering the national territory. Europol, Eurojust, authorities issuing residence permits and those charged with asylum matters may also consult the system. A Regulation currently undergoing adoption makes provision for extending the right of consultation to vehicle registration authorities. The Convention authorises entering data only under certain groups of alerts that can be further classified into two categories: persons and property. As regards the category of persons, the Convention refers to:
The Convention limits the type of information that can be entered in the SIS. Data can include civil status, distinguishing marks and possibly the notation that the person is armed, violent or an escapee. Information may not include race, political opinions, religion, state of health or sexual preferences. For objects, the Convention mentions that vehicles, firearms, identification papers, and stolen or lost banknotes may be listed in the SIS. The Decision of 24 February 2005 adds to the list boats and aircraft, containers, residence permits, vehicle registration papers and payment means. The limits on the use of the SIS are very rigorous. The operation of the SIS necessarily presupposes the creation of a body responsible for monitoring proper application of the Convention's rules regarding personal information. To do this, the originators conceived of setting up a Joint Supervisory Board (JSB). The JSB is made up of two representatives of each of the Member State National Supervisory Boards (NSB) and has the task of ensuring that SIS operators abide by the data protection rules contained in:
In spite of repeated efforts by the European Parliament, the Council has not set up a joint supervisory body with information systems based on the third pillar. It has limited its action to the adoption, on 17 October 2000, of a decision creating a Secretariat for the Joint Supervisory Data Protection Boards in charge of the SIS, the Europol Information System and the Customs Information System (CIS, third pillar). Each State is to make the latter responsible for monitoring the file of the national division of the SIS. (N-SIS) The JSB cooperates closely with these. It falls to the NSBs to ensure that the rules in the Convention related to the protection of the data as well as those that are added, as necessary, by national law are respected. The JSBs are responsible for monitoring the operation of the technical support.To carry out its missions, the JSB may visit the sites and have access to all relevant documents. |
| | |
|
| OUTLOOK |
|
Although there are some technical problems inherent in the use of a network as extensive as the SIS, it functions satisfactorily. It is true that as many problems have appeared at the level of the system's security against possible intrusions as they have at the level of protection of data, but these have been resolved or are being regulated. The question of the legal basis of the SIS is still in abeyance. The alerts related to third-country nationals who have been declared ineligible relate to the first pillar while the other forms of alert, such as those regarding wanted persons, are based on the third pillar. Because there was no agreement between them, the States decided when the Schengen acquis was integrated into Union Law to base temporarily the SIS on the provisions of the third pillar. At a hearing on 8 October 2003, several Members of the EP voiced concerns over the lack of openness of the SIS. The rapporteur for the different proposals related to modernisation of the system, C. COELHO, noted that it is "extremely opaque and hard to understand, even for experts" and "absolutely incomprehensible to citizens". Following that hearing, Parliament adopted a Resolution (COELHO report) on 20 November 2003 calling for the public to be better informed on the SIS.
|
