Procedure : 2008/0242(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0432/2012

Texts tabled :

A7-0432/2012

Debates :

PV 11/06/2013 - 16
CRE 11/06/2013 - 16

Votes :

PV 12/06/2013 - 8.9

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2013)0258

REPORT     ***I
PDF 428kWORD 587k
19 December 2012
PE 450.875v04-00 A7-0432/2012

on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person) and to request comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (recast)

(COM(2012)0254 – C7-0148/2012 – 2008/0242(COD))

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Rapporteur: Monica Luisa Macovei

(Recast – Rule 87 of the Rules of Procedure)

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS
 ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION
 MINORITY OPINION
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person) and to request comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (recast)

(COM(2012)0254 – C7-0148/2012 – 2008/0242(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure – recast)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the amended Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0254),

–   having regard to Article 294(2), Article 78(2)(e), Article 87(2)(a) and Article 88(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0148/2012),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts(1),

–   having regard to the letter of 20 September 2012 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in accordance with Rule 87(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to Rules 87 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0432/2012),

A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance;

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) A common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System, is a constituent part of the European Union's objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek international protection in the Union.

(2) A common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System, is a constituent part of the European Union's objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, seek international protection in the Union.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) For the purposes of applying Council Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person], it is necessary to establish the identity of applicants for international protection and of persons apprehended in connection with the unlawful crossing of the external borders of the Community. It is also desirable, in order effectively to apply the Council Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person], and in particular points (b) and (d) of Article 18(1) thereof, to allow each Member State to check whether a third country national or stateless person found illegally staying on its territory has applied for international protection in another Member State.

(4) For the purposes of applying Regulation (EU) No […/…] of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]*, it is necessary to establish the identity of applicants for international protection and of persons apprehended in connection with the unlawful crossing of the external borders of the Union. It is also desirable, in order effectively to apply Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]*, and in particular points (b) and (d) of Article 18(1) thereof, to allow each Member State to check whether a third country national or stateless person found illegally staying on its territory has applied for international protection in another Member State.

 

_______________

 

* OJ: Please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

 

(The replacement of the term 'Community' by 'Union' applies throughout the text.)

Justification

The amendment is technical and aims to align the text to the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) It is essential in the fight against terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences for the law enforcement authorities to have the fullest and most up-to-date information if they are to perform their tasks. The information contained in EURODAC is necessary for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. Therefore, the data in EURODAC should be available, subject to the conditions set out in this Regulation, for comparison by the designated authorities of Member States and Europol.

deleted

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(8a) The powers granted to law enforcement authorities to access EURODAC should be without prejudice to the right of the applicant for international protection to have his or her application processed in due course in accordance with the relevant law. Furthermore, obtaining a 'hit' from EURODAC and a subsequent procedure according to Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union1 should also be without prejudice to that right and should not be grounds for slowing down the process of examining the applicant's claim for international protection.

 

______________

 

1 OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 89.

Justification

It is important that Member States do not put in place practices which would link a possible result in EURODAC to the success of the asylum application since only a final judgement should have a bearing on this.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(10a) Access to EURODAC data by Europol should be allowed only in specific cases, under specific circumstances and under strict conditions.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) Even though the original purpose for the establishment of EURODAC did not require the facility of requesting comparisons of data with the database on the basis of a latent which is the dactyloscopic trace which may be found at a crime scene, such a facility is a fundamental one in the field of police cooperation. The possibility to compare a latent with the fingerprint data which is stored in EURODAC will provide the designated authorities of the Member States with a very valuable tool in preventing, detecting and investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences, when for example the only evidence available at a crime scene are latents.

(12) Even though the original purpose for the establishment of EURODAC did not require the facility of requesting comparisons of data with the database on the basis of a latent which is the dactyloscopic trace which may be found at a crime scene, such a facility is a fundamental one in the field of police cooperation. The possibility to compare a latent with the fingerprint data which is stored in EURODAC in cases where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the perpetrator or victim may fall under one of the categories covered by this Regulation will provide the designated authorities of the Member States with a very valuable tool in preventing, detecting and investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences, when for example the only evidence available at a crime scene are latents.

Justification

Since EURODAC should only be used in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion that an asylum seeker or other person covered by the EURODAC Regulation has been the perpetrator or victim, this principle shold be underlined in cases where the police are collecting fingerprint evidence from a crime scene.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(12a) The results of the comparison should be immediately checked in the Member State of origin by a fingerprint expert. Final identification should be made by the Member State of origin in cooperation with the Member States concerned, pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No [.../...] of the European Parliament and of the Council [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]*.

 

____________

 

* OJ: Please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(12b) Information received from the Central System relating to other data found to be unreliable should be erased as soon as the unreliability of the data is established.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) This Regulation also lays down the conditions under which requests for comparison of fingerprint data with EURODAC data for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences should be allowed and the necessary safeguards to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to respect for the private life of individuals whose personal data are processed in EURODAC.

(13) This Regulation also lays down the conditions under which requests for comparison of fingerprint data with EURODAC data for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences should be allowed and the necessary safeguards to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to respect for the private life of individuals whose personal data are processed in EURODAC. Those conditions should take into consideration in particular the fact that the Eurodac database registers fingerprint data of persons to whom a legal presumption applies that they have a clean criminal record.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) In view of ensuring equal treatment for all applicants and beneficiaries of international protection, as well as in order to ensure consistency with current Union asylum acquis, in particular with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted1 and Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person], it is appropriate to extent the scope of this Regulation to order to include applicants for subsidiary protection and persons enjoying subsidiary protection.

(14) With a view of ensuring equal treatment for all applicants for and beneficiaries of international protection, as well as in order to ensure consistency with the current Union asylum acquis, in particular with Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees and for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted1 and Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person], it is appropriate to extend the scope of this Regulation in order to include applicants for subsidiary protection and persons enjoying subsidiary protection.

________________

________________

1 OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12.

1 OJ L 337, 20.12.2011, p. 9.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(16a) Member States should ensure the transmission of fingerprint data in an appropriate quality for the purpose of comparison by means of the computerised fingerprint recognition system. All authorities with right of access to Eurodac should invest in adequate training and in the necessary technological equipment. The authorities with right of access to Eurodac should inform the Agency of specific difficulties encountered with regard to the quality of data, in order to resolve them.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(16b) A temporary or permanent impossibility for an applicant for international protection to provide fingerprints ('failure to enrol') should not adversely affect the legal situation of that applicant.

Justification

Articles 9, 14 and 17 of the proposal envisage a temporary situation in which it is not possible to take the fingerprint of an individual concerned by this measure. It should be clarified that neither a temporary or permanent failure to enrol should adversely affect the individual.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Hits obtained from EURODAC should be verified by a fingerprint expert in order to ensure the accurate determination of responsibility under Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person].

(17) Hits obtained from EURODAC should be verified by a trained fingerprint expert in order to ensure the accurate determination of responsibility under Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]*.

 

_______________

 

* OJ: Please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) Requests for comparison with data stored in the EURODAC central database shall be made by the operating units within the designated authorities to the National Access Point, through the verifying authority and shall be reasoned. The operating units within the designated authorities that are authorised to request comparisons with EURODAC data shall not act as a verifying authority. The verifying authorities should be responsible for ensuring strict compliance with the conditions for access as established in this Regulation. The verifying authorities should then forward the request for comparison through the National Access Point to the EURODAC Central System following verification of whether all conditions for access are fulfilled. In the exceptional case of urgency where early access is necessary to respond to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime, the verifying authority should process the request immediately and only do the verification afterwards.

(25) Requests for comparison with data stored in the EURODAC central database should be made by the operating units within the designated authorities to the National Access Point, through the verifying authority and should be reasoned. The operating units within the designated authorities that are authorised to request comparisons with EURODAC data should not act as a verifying authority. The verifying authorities should be independent of the designated authorities and responsible for ensuring strict compliance with the conditions for access as established in this Regulation. The verifying authorities should then forward the request for comparison through the National Access Point to the EURODAC Central System following verification of whether all conditions for access are fulfilled. In the exceptional case of urgency where early access is necessary to respond to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or serious crime, the verifying authority should process the request immediately and only do the verification afterwards.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(25a) The designated authority and the verifying authority may be part of the same organisation if so stipulated under national law, but the verifying authority should have independence within the institutional structure.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) For the purposes of protection of personal data, and to exclude systematic comparisons which should be forbidden, the processing of EURODAC data should only take place on a case-by-case basis and when it is necessary for the purposes of preventing, detecting and investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. In addition access should only be allowed when comparisons with the national databases of the Member State and with the Automated Fingerprint Databases of other Member States under the Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime have returned negative results. This condition requires prior implementation of the Council Decision as it shall not be permitted to conduct a EURODAC check for law enforcement purposes where these above steps have not been first undertaken. A specific case exists in particular when the request for comparison is connected to a specific and concrete situation or to a specific and concrete danger associated with a terrorist or other serious criminal offence, or to specific persons in respect of whom there are serious grounds for believing that the persons will commit or have committed terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences. A specific case also exists when the request for comparison is connected to a person who is a victim of a terrorist or other serious criminal offence. The designated authorities and Europol should thus only request a comparison with EURODAC when they have reasonable grounds to believe that such a comparison will provide information that will substantially assist them in preventing, detecting or investigating a terrorist or other serious criminal offence.

(26) For the purposes of protection of personal data, and to exclude systematic comparisons which should be forbidden, the processing of EURODAC data should only take place on a case-by-case basis and when it is necessary for the purposes of preventing, detecting and investigating terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. In addition access should only be allowed when comparisons with the national databases of the Member State, with the Automated Fingerprint Databases of other Member States under the Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime have returned negative results. This condition requires prior implementation of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA as it shall not be permitted to conduct a EURODAC check for law enforcement purposes where these above steps have not been first undertaken. Designated authorities should also, when possible, consult the Visa Information System under Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences1 prior to consulting EURODAC. A specific case exists in particular when the request for comparison is connected to a specific and concrete situation or to a specific and concrete danger associated with a terrorist or other serious criminal offence, or to specific persons in respect of whom there are serious grounds for believing that the persons will commit or have committed terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences. A specific case also exists when the request for comparison is connected to a person who is a victim of a terrorist or other serious criminal offence. The designated authorities and Europol should thus only request a comparison with EURODAC when they have reasonable grounds to believe that such a comparison will provide information that will substantially assist them in preventing, detecting or investigating a terrorist or other serious criminal offence.

 

___________________

 

1 OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 129.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(26a) For the purpose of efficient comparison and exchange of personal data, the Member States should fully implement and make use of the existing international agreements as well as of Union law concerning the exchange of personal data already in force, in particular of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty, the objective of the proposed measures, namely the creation of a system for the comparison of fingerprint data to assist the implementation of the Community's asylum policy, cannot, by its very nature, be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved by the Community. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in the said Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

(29) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the creation of a system for the comparison of fingerprint data to assist the implementation of the Union asylum policy, cannot, by its very nature, be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

Amendment  19

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) Transfers of data obtained pursuant to this Decision to third countries or international organisations or private entities should be prohibited, in order to ensure the right to asylum and to safeguard applicants for international protection from having their data disclosed to any third country. This prohibition shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to transfer such data to third countries to which Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person] applies, in order to ensure that Member States have the possibility of cooperating with such third countries for the purposes of this Regulation.

(33) Transfers of data obtained pursuant to this Decision to third countries or international organisations or private entities should be prohibited, in order to ensure the right to asylum and to safeguard applicants for international protection from having their data disclosed to any third country. The prohibition of transfer to third countries should cover both EURODAC data obtained under this Regulation and personal data exchanged bilaterally subsequent to a EURODAC search which are stored or processed at national level. This prohibition should be without prejudice to the right of Member States to transfer such data to third countries to which Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]* applies, in order to ensure that Member States have the possibility of cooperating with such third countries for the purposes of this Regulation. That right should not apply to transfers of data to third countries in the context of law enforcement.

 

____________

 

* OJ: Please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

Justification

This complements the amendment to Article 35. It is important to ensure that the risk of the asylum seeker's application becoming known to their state of origin is minimised. As we are dealing with a vulnerable group of people, transfer of data to third countries in the context of law enforcement should be prohibited.

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data and in particular Articles 21 and 22 thereof concerning confidentiality and security of processing apply to the processing of personal data by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies carried out in application of this Regulation. However, certain points should be clarified in respect of the responsibility for the processing of data and of the supervision of data protection.

(35) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data and in particular Articles 21 and 22 thereof concerning confidentiality and security of processing apply to the processing of personal data by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies carried out in application of this Regulation. However, certain points should be clarified in respect of the responsibility for the processing of data and of the supervision of data protection, bearing in mind that data protection is a key factor in the successful operation of EURODAC and that data security, high technical quality and lawfulness of consultations are essential to ensure the smooth and proper functioning of EURODAC, as well as to facilitate the application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]*.

 

_______________

 

* OJ: Please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(35a) The data subject should be informed of the purpose for which his or her data will be processed within EURODAC, including a description of the aims of Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]*and the use to which law enforcement authorities may put his or her data.

 

____________

 

* OJ: Please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

Justification

It is useful to underline that Article 29(1) includes the obligation on the authorities to inform the data subject of the use to which law enforcement authorities may put their data.

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37) It is appropriate to monitor and evaluate the performance of EURODAC at regular intervals.

(37) It is appropriate to monitor and evaluate the performance of EURODAC at regular intervals, including in terms of whether law enforcement access has led to the stigmatisation of applicants for international protection as raised in the Commission's evaluation of the compliance of the proposal with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Agency should submit an annual report on the activities of the Central System to the European Parliament and to the Council.

Amendment  23

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(39) It is necessary that Member States are informed of the status of particular asylum procedures, with a view to facilitating the adequate application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person].

(39) It is necessary that Member States be informed of the status of particular asylum procedures, with a view to facilitating the adequate application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]*.

 

______________

 

* OJ: Please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

Amendment  24

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(40) This Regulation respects and has to be applied in accordance with fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Regulation fully respects the individual’s right to protection of his or her personal data and the right to asylum.

(40) This Regulation respects and has to be applied in accordance with fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Regulation seeks to ensure full respect for the protection of personal data and the right to seek asylum and to promote the application of Articles 8 and 18 of the Charter.

Amendment  25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) "person granted international protection" means a third country national or a stateless person recognised as entitled to international protection as defined in point (a) of Article 2 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC;

(d) “beneficiary of international protection” means a third country national or a stateless person who has been granted international protection as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2011/95/EU;

Amendment  26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) "hit" shall mean the existence of a match or matches established by the Central System by comparison between fingerprint data recorded in the central database and those transmitted by a Member State with regard to a person, without prejudice to the requirement that Member States shall immediately check the results of the comparison pursuant to Article 18(4);

(e) "hit" means the existence of a match or matches established by the Central System by comparison between fingerprint data recorded in the computerised central database and those transmitted by a Member State with regard to a person, without prejudice to the requirement that Member States shall immediately check the results of the comparison pursuant to Article 18(4);

Justification

This amendment is technical and aims to align the wording to that present in Article 3(1)(a).

Amendment  27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) a computerised central fingerprint database (Central System) composed of

(a) a computerised central fingerprint database (Central System) composed of:

– a Central Unit,

– a Central Unit,

– a Business Continuity System.

– a Business Continuity Plan.

Justification

A critical system such as EURODAC should be covered by a sound and tested Business Continuity Plan rather than just a technical system. The Business Continuity Plan should include repercussions on data protection, security and costs in case of major distruptions or disasters.

Amendment  28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The procedure for taking fingerprints shall be determined and applied in accordance with the national practice of the Member State concerned and in accordance with the safeguards laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

5. The procedure for taking fingerprints shall be determined and applied in accordance with the national practice of the Member State concerned and in accordance with the safeguards laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for the Member States when applying this Regulation.

Justification

This amendment brings this Regulation in line with the Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection which specifies that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration when implementing the Regulation. Also the EDPS in its 2008-2009 Activity Report highlighted the rights of persons subjected to age evaluations.

Amendment  29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Agency, shall be responsible for the operational management of EURODAC. The Agency shall ensure, in cooperation with the Member States, that at all times the best available technology, subject to a cost-benefit analysis, is used for the Central System.

1. The Agency shall be responsible for the operational management of EURODAC. The Agency shall ensure, in cooperation with the Member States, that at all times the best available and most secure technology and techniques, subject to a cost-benefit analysis, are used for the Central System.

Amendment  30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Operational management of EURODAC shall consist of all the tasks necessary to keep EURODAC functioning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in accordance with this Regulation, in particular the maintenance work and technical developments necessary to ensure that the system functions at a satisfactory level of operational quality, in particular as regards the time required for interrogation of the Central System.

5. Operational management of EURODAC shall consist of all the tasks necessary to keep EURODAC functioning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in accordance with this Regulation, in particular the maintenance work and technical developments necessary to ensure that the system functions at a satisfactory level of operational quality, in particular as regards the time required for interrogation of the Central System. A Business Continuity Plan shall be developed taking into account maintenance needs and unforeseen downtime of the system, including the impact of business continuity measures on data protection and security.

Amendment  31

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall designate the authorities which are authorised to access EURODAC data pursuant to this Regulation. Designated authorities shall be authorities of the Member States which are responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences.

1. For the purposes laid down in Article 1(2), Member States shall designate the authorities which are authorised to access EURODAC data pursuant to this Regulation. Designated authorities shall be authorities of the Member States which are responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. Designated authorities shall not include agencies or units exclusively responsible for intelligence relating to national security.

Amendment  32

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. At national level, each Member State shall keep a list of the operating units within the designated authorities that are authorised to request comparisons with EURODAC data through the National Access Point.

3. Each Member State shall keep a list of the operating units within the designated authorities that are authorised to request comparisons with EURODAC data through the National Access Point.

Amendment  33

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Each Member State shall designate a single national body to act as its verifying authority. The verifying authority shall be an authority of the Member State which is responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences.

1. Each Member State shall designate a single national body to act as its verifying authority. The verifying authority shall be an authority of the Member State which is responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences, shall act independently of the designated authorities referred to in Article 5 and shall not receive instructions from them as regards the outcome of the verification.

Amendment  34

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Only duly empowered staff of the verifying authority shall be authorised to access EURODAC in accordance with Article 19.

Justification

This provision is in the VIS Decision 2008/633/JHA and is a sensible addition.

Amendment  35

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Europol shall designate a specialised unit with duly empowered Europol officials to act as its verifying authority and shall designate in agreement with any Member State the National Access Point of that Member State which shall communicate its requests for comparison of fingerprint data to the Central System.

1. Europol shall designate a specialised unit with duly empowered Europol officials to act as its verifying authority, which shall act independently of the designated authorities referred to in Article 5 and shall not receive instructions from them as regards the outcome of the verification, and shall designate in agreement with any Member State the National Access Point of that Member State which shall communicate its requests for comparison of fingerprint data to the Central System.

Amendment  36

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Agency shall draw up statistics on the work of the Central System every month, indicating in particular:

1. The Agency shall draw up statistics on the work of the Central System every quarter, indicating in particular:

Justification

Monthly statistics are too frequent and they would only overload the work of the Agency and of the institutions receiving them with the risk of not providing a relevant image of the activities reported on.

Amendment  37

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f) the number of requests for marking and unmarking transmitted in accordance with Article 18(1) and (2).

(f) the number of requests for blocking and unblocking transmitted in accordance with Article 18(1) and (2).

Amendment  38

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. At the end of each year, statistical data shall be established in the form of a compilation of the monthly statistics for that year, including an indication of the number of persons for whom hits have been recorded under points (b), (c), and (d). The statistics shall contain a breakdown of data for each Member State.

2. At the end of each year, statistical data shall be established in the form of a compilation of the quarterly statistics for that year, including an indication of the number of persons for whom hits have been recorded under points (b), (c), and (d). The statistics shall contain a breakdown of data for each Member State. The result shall be made public.

Justification

Monthly statistics are too frequent and they would only overload the work of the Agency and of the institutions receiving them with the risk of not providing a relevant image of the activities reported on.

Amendment  39

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprints

Collection, transmission and comparison of fingerprint data

Justification

Technical amendment (harmonisation of wording in line with the titles of Articles 14 and 17).

Amendment  40

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where it is not possible to take the fingerprints of an applicant on account of measures taken to ensure the health of the applicant or the protection of public health, Member States shall take and send the fingerprints of the applicant as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after these grounds no longer prevail.

2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where it is not possible to take the fingerprints of an applicant on account of measures taken to ensure the health of the applicant, for the protection of public health or for technical reasons, Member States shall take and send the fingerprints of the applicant as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after these grounds no longer prevail.

Justification

Technical defects can occur at any time, hence the need for the addition.

Amendment  41

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.Temporary or permanent impossibility to provide usable fingerprints shall not adversely affect the legal situation of the individual. In any event, such impossibility shall not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse to examine or to reject an application for international protection.

Amendment  42

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Central System shall inform all Member States of origin about the erasure of data for the reason specified in paragraph 1 by another Member State of origin having produced a hit with data which they transmitted relating to persons referred to in Article 9(1) or Article 14(1).

2. The Central System shall inform as soon as possible and not later than after 72 hours, all Member States of origin about the erasure of data for the reason specified in paragraph 1 by another Member State of origin having produced a hit with data which they transmitted relating to persons referred to in Article 9(1) or Article 14(1).

Amendment  43

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Each Member State shall promptly take the fingerprints of all fingers of every third country national or stateless person of at least 14 years of age who is apprehended by the competent control authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the border of that Member State having come from a third country and who is not turned back or who remains physically on the territory of the Member States and who is not kept in custody, confinement or detention during the entirety of the period between apprehension and removal on the basis of the decision to turn them back.

1. Each Member State shall, whilst fully respecting the safeguards laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, promptly take the fingerprints of all fingers of every third country national or stateless person of at least 14 years of age who is apprehended by the competent control authorities in connection with the irregular crossing by land, sea or air of the border of that Member State having come from a third country and who is not turned back or who remains physically on the territory of the Member States and who is not kept in custody, confinement or detention during the entirety of the period between apprehension and removal on the basis of the decision to turn him or her back.

Amendment  44

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Non compliance with the 72 hours time limit referred to in paragraph 2 does not relieve Member States of the obligation to take and transmit the fingerprints to the Central System. Where the condition of the fingertips does not allow to take the fingerprints in a quality ensuring appropriate comparison under Article 25, the Member State of origin shall retake the fingerprints of such person and resend them as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after they have been successfully taken.

4. Where the condition of the fingertips does not allow to take the fingerprints in a quality ensuring appropriate comparison under Article 25, the Member State of origin shall retake the fingerprints of such person and resend them as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after they have been successfully taken.

Amendment  45

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where it is not possible to take the fingerprints of such person on account of measures taken to ensure the health of the person or the protection of public health, the Member State concerned shall take and send the fingerprints of the person, in accordance with the deadline set out in paragraph 2, once these grounds no longer prevail.

5. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where it is not possible to take the fingerprints of such person on account of measures taken to ensure the health of the person, for the protection of public health or for technical reasons, the Member State concerned shall take and send the fingerprints of the person, in accordance with the deadline set out in paragraph 2, once these grounds no longer prevail.

Justification

Technical defects can occur at any time, hence the need for the addition.

mendment  46

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

5a.Temporary or permanent impossibility to provide usable fingerprints shall not adversely affect the legal situation of the individual. In any event, such impossibility shall not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse to examine or to reject an application for international protection.

Amendment  47

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Central System shall inform all Member States of origin about the erasure of data for the reason specified in point (a) or (b) of paragraph 2 or by another Member State of origin having produced a hit with data which they transmitted relating to persons referred to in Article 14(1).

3. The Central System shall inform all Member States of origin as soon as possible and no later than after 72 hours about the erasure of data for the reason specified in point (a) or (b) of paragraph 2 or by another Member State of origin having produced a hit with data which they transmitted relating to persons referred to in Article 14(1).

Amendment  48

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The Central System shall inform all Member States of origin about the erasure of data for the reason specified in point (c) of paragraph 2 by another Member State of origin having produced a hit with data which they transmitted relating to persons referred to in Article 9(1) or Article 14(1).

4. The Central System shall inform all Member States of origin as soon as possible and no later than after 72 hours about the erasure of data for the reason specified in point (c) of paragraph 2 by another Member State of origin having produced a hit with data which they transmitted relating to persons referred to in Article 9(1) or Article 14(1).

Amendment  49

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a. Once the results of the comparison have been transmitted to the Member State of origin, the Central System shall immediately erase the fingerprint data and other data transmitted to it pursuant to paragraph 1.

Amendment  50

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 18

Article 18

Marking of data

Blocking of data

1. The Member State of origin which granted international protection to an applicant for international protection whose data were previously recorded pursuant to Article 11 in the Central System shall mark the relevant data in conformity with the requirements for electronic communication with the Central System established by the Agency. This mark shall be stored in the Central System in accordance with Article 12 for the purpose of transmission under Article 9(5).

1. Data relating to an applicant for international protection which have been recorded pursuant to Article 11 shall be blocked in the central database if that person is granted international protection in a Member State. Such blocking shall be carried out by the Central System on the instructions of the Member State of origin.

2. The Member State of origin shall unmark data concerning a third country national or stateless person whose data were previously marked in accordance with paragraph 1 if his or her status is revoked or ended or renewal of his status is refused under Article 14 or 19 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC.

2. Hits concerning persons who have been granted international protection in a Member State shall not be transmitted. The Central System shall return a negative result to the requesting Member State.

Amendment  51

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The designated authorities referred to in Article 5(1) and Europol may submit a reasoned electronic request to the verifying authority for the transmission for comparison of fingerprint data to the EURODAC Central System via the National Access Point. Upon receipt of such a request, the verifying authority shall verify whether the conditions for requesting a comparison referred to in Article 20 or Article 21, as appropriate, are fulfilled.

1. The designated authorities referred to in Article 5(1) and Europol may submit a reasoned electronic request as provided for in Article 20(1) to the verifying authority for the transmission for comparison of fingerprint data to the EURODAC Central System via the National Access Point. Upon receipt of such a request, the verifying authority shall verify whether the conditions for requesting a comparison referred to in Article 20 or Article 21, as appropriate, are fulfilled.

Justification

It should be specified that the reasoned request should justify the request according to all criteria stipulated in Article 20.

Amendment  52

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. In exceptional cases of urgency, the verifying authority may transmit the fingerprint data to the National Access Point for comparison immediately upon receipt of a request by a designated authority and only verify ex-post whether all the conditions of Article 20 or Article 21 are fulfilled, including whether an exceptional case of urgency actually existed. The ex-post verification shall take place without undue delay after the processing of the request.

3. In exceptional cases of urgency of the need to prevent an imminent danger associated with a terrorist or other serious criminal offence, the verifying authority may transmit the fingerprint data to the National Access Point for comparison immediately upon receipt of a request by a designated authority and only verify ex-post whether all the conditions of Article 20 or Article 21 are fulfilled, including whether an exceptional case of urgency actually existed. The ex-post verification shall take place without undue delay after the processing of the request.

Justification

The threshold for justifying the bipassing of prior scrutiny should be tightened.

Amendment  53

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a. The Commission shall publish an indicative, non-binding model EURODAC request form for use under this Article, which correctly reflects the criteria set out in Article 20(1).

Justification

It is reasonable that Member States can decide internally in what way the requesting authority interacts with the verifying authority. But since the verifying authority is called on to evaluate the criteria set out in Article 20(1) in the form of a 'reasoned electronic request' it could be helpful to have some EU-level guidance on what such a form could look like.

Amendment  54

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Designated authorities may request the comparison of fingerprint data with those stored in the EURODAC central database within the scope of their powers only if comparisons of national fingerprint databases and of the Automated Fingerprint Databases of other Member States under Decision 2008/615/JHA return negative results and where:

1. Designated authorities may submit a reasoned electronic request for the comparison of fingerprint data with those stored in the EURODAC central database within the scope of their powers only if comparisons of national fingerprint databases, of the Automated Fingerprint Databases of other Member States under Decision 2008/615/JHA and of the Visa Information System when possible return negative results and where all the following cumulative conditions are met:

Amendment  55

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) there are reasonable grounds to consider that such comparison with EURODAC data will contribute to the prevention, detection or investigation of any of the criminal offences in question.

(c) there is an overriding public security concern which makes the querying of the database proportionate, and there are reasonable grounds to consider that such comparison with EURODAC data will substantially contribute to the prevention, detection or investigation of any of the criminal offences in question.

Justification

This wording in recital 9 needs to be incorporated in the text.

Amendment  56

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca) there is a substantiated suspicion that the suspect, perpetrator or victim of a terrorist or other serious criminal offence has applied for international protection.

Justification

Eurodac data searches should be permitted in limited circumstances only, as part of an ongoing criminal investigation and in cases where there is a substantiated suspicion that the perpetrator or suspect has applied for asylum. Eurodac searches should not become an 'automatic' search carried out by the law enforcement authorities.

Amendment  57

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Requests for comparison with EURODAC data by Europol shall take place within the limits of its mandate and where necessary for the performance of its tasks pursuant to the Europol Decision and for the purposes of a specific analysis or an analysis of a general nature and of a strategic type.

1. Requests for comparison with EURODAC data by Europol shall take place within the limits of its mandate and where necessary for the performance of its tasks pursuant to Decision 2009/371/JHA.

Justification

This amendment is proposed in order to align the text with the conditions set forth in Article 20(1)(b).

Amendment  58

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. However, access to EURODAC data by Europol shall be allowed only in specific cases, under specific circumstances and under the strict conditions provided for in Article 20(1).

Amendment  59

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The results of the comparison shall be immediately checked in the Member State of origin by a fingerprint expert. Final identification shall be made by the Member State of origin in cooperation with the Member States concerned, pursuant to Article 32 of the Dublin Regulation.

4. The results of the comparison shall be immediately checked in the Member State of origin by a trained fingerprint expert. Final identification shall be made by the Member State of origin in cooperation with the Member States concerned, pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No […/…] of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]*.

 

_____________

 

* OJ please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

Amendment  60

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Where final identification in accordance with paragraph 4 reveal that the result of the comparison received from the Central System is inaccurate, Member States shall communicate this fact to the Commission and to the Agency.

5. Where final identification in accordance with paragraph 4 reveals that the result of the comparison received from the Central System is inaccurate, Member States shall communicate this fact as soon as possible and no later than after 72 hours to the Commission and to the Agency. The Central System shall transmit a maximum of the five best matching fingerprints to the designated authorities referred to in Article 5(1) and Europol.

Amendment  61

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The authorities of Member States which, pursuant to paragraph 1, have access to data recorded in the Central System shall be those designated by each Member State for the purpose of Article 1(1). This designation shall specify the exact unit responsible for carrying out tasks related to the application of this Regulation. Each Member State shall without delay communicate to the Commission and the Agency a list of those authorities and any amendments thereto. The Agency shall publish the consolidated list in the Official Journal of the European Union. Where there are amendments thereto, the Agency shall publish once a year an updated consolidated list.

2. The authorities of Member States which, pursuant to paragraph 1, have access to data recorded in the Central System shall be those designated by each Member State for the purpose of Article 1(1). That designation shall specify the precise unit responsible for carrying out tasks related to the application of this Regulation. Each Member State shall without delay communicate to the Commission and the Agency a list of those units and any amendments thereto. The Agency shall publish the consolidated list in the Official Journal of the European Union. Where there are amendments thereto, the Agency shall publish once a year an updated consolidated list online.

Amendment  62

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. A person covered by this Regulation shall be informed by the Member State of origin in writing, and where appropriate, orally, in a language which he or she understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand of the following:

1. A person covered by this Regulation shall be informed by the Member State of origin in writing, and where necessary, orally, in a language that he or she understands or is reasonably supposed to understand of the following:

Amendment  63

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) regarding the purpose for which his or her data will be processed within EURODAC including a description of the aims of the Dublin Regulation, in accordance with Article 4 of that Regulation.

(b) regarding the purpose for which his or her data will be processed within EURODAC including a description of the aims of the Dublin Regulation, in accordance with Article 4 of that Regulation and a comprehensive explanation of the fact that EURODAC may be accessed by the Member States and Europol for law enforcement purposes.

Amendment  64

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) the existence of the right of access to data relating to him/her, and the right to request that inaccurate data relating to him/her be corrected or that unlawfully processed data relating to them be erased, as well as the right to receive information on the procedures for exercising those rights including the contact details of the controller and the National Supervisory Authorities referred to in Article 31(1).

(e) the right of access to data relating to him/her, and the right to request that inaccurate data relating to him/her be corrected or that unlawfully processed data relating to him or her be erased, as well as the procedures for exercising those rights including the contact details of the controller and the National Supervisory Authorities referred to in Article 31(1).

Justification

The objective is to clarify that the person covered by the Regulation shall be informed about the "right of access to data relating to him/her" instead of "the existence of the right". In the same line it is clearer to indicate that the person will be informed about "the procedures for exercising the rights" as it has also been suggested by the European Data Protection Supervisor in its opinion.

Amendment  65

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

A common leaflet, containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the information referred to in Article 4(1) of the Dublin Regulation shall be drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 40(2) of the Dublin Regulation. The leaflet should be "clear and simple, drafted in a language that the person understands or may reasonably be presumed to understand.

A common leaflet, containing at least the information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and the information referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No […/…] of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person]* shall be drawn up in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 40(2) of Regulation […/…]*. The leaflet shall be "clear and simple, drafted in a language that the person understands or is reasonably supposed to understand". It shall also include information on the rights of the data subject and the possibility of assistance by the National Supervisory Authorities as well as the contact details of the controller and the National Supervisory Authorities.

 

___________

 

* OJ please insert the number, date and publication reference of the Dublin Regulation.

Amendment  66

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where a person covered by this Regulation is a minor, Member States shall provide the information in an age-appropriate manner.

Where a person covered by this Regulation is a minor, Member States shall provide the information in an age-appropriate manner. The Commission shall provide templates of the leaflets for adults and minors to the Member States. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for the Member States when applying this Article.

Justification

This amendment brings this Regulation in line with the Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection which specifies that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration when implementing the Regulation. Also the EDPS in its 2008-2009 Activity Report highlighted the rights of persons subjected to age evaluations.

Amendment  67

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 – paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. Whenever a person requests data relating to him or her in accordance with paragraph 2, the competent authority shall keep a record in the form of a written document that such a request was made, and shall make this document available to the National Supervisory Authorities without delay, upon their request.

9. Whenever a person requests data relating to him or her in accordance with paragraph 2, the competent authority shall keep a record in the form of a written document that such a request was made, and shall make this document available to the National Supervisory Authorities without delay, upon their request. It shall immediately inform the National Supervisory Authorities when a person requests the correction or erasure of his or her data. No later than three weeks after the request, the competent authority shall confirm to the National Supervisory Authorities that it has taken action to correct or erase the data or, where the Member State concerned does not agree that the data recorded in the Central System are inaccurate or have been recorded unlawfully, it shall explain why it is not prepared to correct or erase the data.

Justification

Since persons whose data are stored in Eurodac are presumably not familiar with rights and procedures related to data protection in the Member States, the role of National Supervisory Authorities should be strengthened. Assistance by National Supervisory Authorities is all the more important if law enforcement agencies get access to the data.

Amendment  68

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall ensure that all the personal data processing activities concerning EURODAC, in particular by the Agency are carried out in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and this Regulation.

1. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall ensure that all the personal data processing activities concerning EURODAC, in particular by the Agency and by Europol are carried out in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and this Regulation.

Amendment  69

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall ensure that an audit of the Agency's personal data processing activities is carried out in accordance with international auditing standards at least every four years. A report of such audit shall be sent to the European Parliament, the Council, the Agency, the Commission and the National Supervisory Authorities. The Agency shall be given an opportunity to make comments before the report is adopted.

2. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall ensure that an audit of the Agency's personal data processing activities is carried out in accordance with international auditing standards at least every two years. A report of such audit shall be sent to the European Parliament, the Council, the Agency, the Commission and the National Supervisory Authorities. The Agency shall be given an opportunity to make comments before the report is adopted.

Amendment  70

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. The National Supervisory Authority shall ensure that every year an audit of the processing of personal data in accordance with Article 1(2) is carried out, including an analysis of all reasoned electronic requests.

 

The audit shall be attached to the Member State annual report referred to in Article 40(8).

Justification

The national data protection authority should annually audit the use of Eurodac specifically as a law enforcement tool. The Member States have to present the European Parliament with annual reports according to Article 40, but the use of Eurodac for law enforcement access by national authorities should be audited by national DPs and the results of these audits communicated equally to the Parliament.

Amendment  71

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a. Both the National and the European Supervisory Authorities shall be provided with sufficient financial and personal resources to be able adequately to supervise the use of and access to Eurodac data.

Amendment  72

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Personal data obtained pursuant to this Regulation from EURODAC shall only be processed for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences or of other serious criminal offences.

3. Personal data obtained pursuant to this Regulation from EURODAC for the purposes as laid down in Article 1(2) shall only be processed for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of the specific criminal investigation for which the data have been requested by that Member State, or Europol.

Justification

To ensure consistency with amendment to article 33, paragraph 4.

Amendment  73

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Personal data obtained by a Member State or Europol pursuant to this Regulation from EURODAC shall be erased in national and Europol files after a period of one month, if the data are not required for a specific ongoing criminal investigation by that Member State, or Europol.

4. The record of the search shall be kept by the Eurodac central system and the verifying authorities and Europol for the purpose of permitting the national data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor to monitor the compliance of data processing with Union data protection rules, including for the purpose of maintaining records in order to draft the reports specified in Article 40(8). Other than for the above-mentioned purposes, personal data, as well as the record of the search, shall be erased in all national and Europol files after a period of one month, if the data are not required for the purposes of the specific ongoing criminal investigation for which the data have been requested by that Member State, or Europol.

Justification

The requirement for erasure needs to be tightened and extended to the record of the search having been made.

Amendment  74

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) physically protect data, including by making contingency plans for the protection of critical infrastructure;

(a) physically protect data, including by making contingency plans for the protection of relevant infrastructure;

Amendment  75

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 – paragraph 2 – point g

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(g) ensure that all authorities with a right of access to EURODAC create profiles describing the functions and responsibilities of persons who are authorised to access, enter, update, erase and search the data and make these profiles available to the National Supervisory Authorities referred to in Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA without delay at their request (personnel profiles);

(g) ensure that all authorities with a right of access to EURODAC create profiles describing the functions and responsibilities of persons who are authorised to access, enter, update, erase and search the data and make these profiles and any other relevant information which the authorities may require for the purpose of carrying out supervision available to the National Supervisory Authorities referred to in Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC and in Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA without delay at their request (personnel profiles);

Amendment  76

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 – paragraph 2 – point k

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(k) monitor the effectiveness of the security measures referred to in this paragraph and take the necessary organisational measures related to internal monitoring to ensure compliance with this Regulation (self-auditing).

(k) monitor the effectiveness of the security measures referred to in this paragraph and take the necessary organisational measures related to internal monitoring to ensure compliance with this Regulation (self-auditing) and also near real-time observation of the system using specialized tools. Member States shall inform the Agency of the security incidents detected on their system. The Agency shall inform the Member States, Europol and the European Data Protection Supervisor in case of security incidents. All parties shall collaborate during a security incident.

Amendment  77

Proposal for a regulation

Article 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Personal data obtained by a Member State or Europol pursuant to this Regulation from the EURODAC central database shall not be transferred or made available to any third country or international organisation or a private entity established in or outside the European Union. This prohibition shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to transfer such data to third countries to which the Dublin Regulation applies.

Personal data obtained by a Member State or Europol pursuant to this Regulation from the EURODAC central database shall not be transferred or made available to any third country or international organisation or a private entity established in or outside the European Union. Personal data obtained by a Member State or Europol and processed further in national databases shall not be transferred or made available to any third country or international organisation or a private entity established in or outside the Union. This prohibition shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to transfer such data to third countries to which the Dublin Regulation applies.

Justification

The ban on transfers to third countries should be extended to data which has been further processed.

Amendment  78

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Every two years, the Agency shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European Data Protection Supervisor a report on the technical functioning of the Central System, including the security thereof.

4. Every year, the Agency shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European Data Protection Supervisor a report on the technical functioning of the Central System, including the security thereof.

Amendment  79

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Three years after the start of application of this Regulation as provided for in Article 46(2) and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall produce an overall evaluation of EURODAC, examining results achieved against objectives and assessing the continuing validity of the underlying rationale, and any implications for future operations, as well as make any necessary recommendations. The Commission shall transmit the evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council.

5. Three years after the start of application of this Regulation as provided for in Article 46(2) and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall produce an overall evaluation of EURODAC, examining the results achieved against objectives and the impact on fundamental rights, including whether law enforcement access has led to the indirect discrimination of persons covered by this Regulation, and assessing the continuing validity of the underlying rationale, and any implications for future operations, as well as make any necessary recommendations. The Commission shall transmit the evaluation to the European Parliament and the Council.

Amendment  80

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. Each Member State and Europol shall prepare annual reports on the effectiveness of the comparison of fingerprint data with EURODAC data for law enforcement access purposes, containing information and statistics on the exact purpose of the comparison, including the type of a terrorist offence or a serious criminal offence, number of requests for comparison, the number and type of cases which have ended in successful identifications and on the need and use made of the exceptional case of urgency as well as on those cases where that urgency was not accepted by the ex post verification carried out by the verifying authority. Such reports shall be transmitted to the Commission.

8. Each Member State and Europol shall prepare annual reports on the effectiveness of the comparison of fingerprint data with EURODAC data for law enforcement access purposes, containing information and statistics on the exact purpose of the comparison, including the type of a terrorist offence or a serious criminal offence, grounds given for reasonable suspicion, number of requests for comparison, the number and type of cases which have ended in successful identifications and on the need and use made of the exceptional case of urgency as well as on those cases where that urgency was not accepted by the ex post verification carried out by the verifying authority. Such reports shall be transmitted to the Commission. On the basis of these annual reports and in addition to the overall evaluation provided for in paragraph 5, the Commission shall compile an annual report on law enforcement access to EURODAC and shall transmit the evaluation to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Justification

The first change reflects the amendment in Article 20(d)(new). The second calls for the Commission to report annually on law enforcement access based on national and Europol reports.

Amendment  81

Proposal for a regulation

Article 43 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. By [three months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest each Member State shall notify the Commission of its designated authorities and shall notify without delay any amendment thereto.

1. By [three months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation] at the latest each Member State shall notify the Commission of its designated authorities and of the operating units referred to in Article 5(3) and shall notify without delay any amendment thereto.

Amendment  82

Proposal for a regulation

Article 43 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. Each Member State shall constantly update the information it has provided to the Commission. The Commission shall make that information available to the other Member States, Europol and the public via a constantly updated electronic publication.

Amendment  83

Proposal for a regulation

Article 43 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a. Europol shall constantly update the information it has provided to the Commission. The Commission shall make this information available to the other Member States and the public via a constantly updated electronic publication.

(1)

OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

EURODAC was established by Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 concerning the establishment of "Eurodac" for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention(1). The Commission adopted in December 2008(2) a recast proposal for the amendment of the EURODAC Regulation with the aim of ensuring a more efficient support to the application of the Dublin Regulation, properly addressing data protection concerns and taking into account developments in the asylum acquis and technical progress which took place since the adoption of the Regulation in 2000. It also aligned the IT management framework to that of the SIS II and VIS Regulations by providing for the taking over of the tasks of the operational management for EURODAC by the future Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice.(3)

In May 2009, the European Parliament adopted a legislative resolution(4) endorsing the Commission proposal subject to a number of amendments.

The Commission adopted an amended proposal in September 2009 in order to, on the one hand, take into account the resolution of the European Parliament and the results of negotiations in the Council, and, on the other hand, introduce the possibility for Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol to access the EURODAC central database for the purposes of prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences.(5) The proposal introduced a bridging clause to allow access for law enforcement purposes as well as the necessary accompanying provisions and amended the December 2008 proposal. At the same time the Commission put forward the Proposal for a Council Decision on requesting comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes(6), which indicated the precise modalities of such access.(7)

The European Parliament did not issue a legislative resolution on the September 2009 proposals.

The Council Decision proposal lapsed as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The Communication on the consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures(8) indicated that such proposal would be formally withdrawn and replaced with a new proposal to take account of the new framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The proposal submitted by the Commission on 11 October 2010 did not include the option of access for law enforcement purposes present in the September 2009 proposal and introduced two additional elements:

- in Article 18(4) the need for a check of the automated hit result by a fingerprint expert is clarified

- in Article 24(1) appropriate provisions are inserted in order to allow the committee under the Dublin Regulation to include information on EURODAC in the leaflet to be prepared under Article 4(3).

On 3 February 2011, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted an orientation vote on the Commission's proposal.

The current proposal withdraws the 2010 proposal and replaces it with a new one in order first to better take into account the resolution of the European Parliament and the results of negotiations in the Council; second to introduce the possibility for Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol to access the EURODAC central database for the purposes of prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. Including law enforcement access for EURODAC was needed as part of a balanced deal on the negotiations of the Common European Asylum System package with a view to completing the package by the end of 2012.

Organised crime networks from third countries seek to abuse the asylum system to bring criminal members of a network into an EU Member State as contacts for their criminal business. Once within the territory of an EU Member State, these members of the organised crime network ask for asylum with false identities in order to get a legitimate stay in the EU without any criminal record. Moreover, information provided by Europol suggests that human traffickers also seek to abuse the asylum system by requesting asylum alleging a false country of origin. With these concerns in mind, your Rapporteur welcomes the possibility for Member States' designated authorities and the European Police Office (Europol) to request the comparison of fingerprint data -on a hit/no hit basis- with those stored in the EURODAC database for the fight against terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. The Rapporteur believes that providing for the law enforcement access to EURODAC is a significant step forward from the last proposal, capable of preventing the type of situations described above while being accompanied by the necessary safeguards.

Your Rapporteur supports the Commission's proposal. She has put forward a series of amendments that can be summed up in two categories: technical amendments (e.g.: alignment to Lisbon Treaty provisions, references to the recast proposal on "Qualification Directive", internal references) and amendments aimed at providing clarifications of the text (e.g.: replacement of term "technology" by "techniques" in Article 4, additions in the Statistics section and clarification concerning the right of access to data). Additional amendments aim to include relevant remarks of the European Data Protection Supervisor.

(1)

          OJ L 062, 05.03.2002, p. 1.

(2)

          Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EC) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person], COM(2008)825 final.

(3)

          The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice [COM(2009) 293 final] was adopted on 24 June 2009. An amended proposal was adopted on 19 March 2010: Amended proposal for a Regulation (EU) No …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing an Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, COM(2010)93.

(4)

          Establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints (recast), P6_TA(2009)0378.

(5)

          Such a proposal was called for by Council Conclusions on access to Eurodac by Member States’ police and law enforcement authorities as well as Europol of 12 and 13 June 2007.

(6)

          COM(2009) 344.

(7)

         COM(2010) 555, p.2-3.

(8)

          COM(2009) 665 final/2.


ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

Ref.: D(2012)46723

Mr Juan Fernando López Aguilar

Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

ASP 11G306

Brussels       

Subject:     Amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person) and to request comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (recast)

                  (COM(2012)0254 C7-0148/2012 2008/0242(COD))

Dear Chairman,

The Committee on Legal Affairs, which I am honoured to chair, has examined the proposal referred to above, pursuant to Rule 87 on Recasting, as introduced into the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

Paragraph 3 of that Rule reads as follows:

"If the committee responsible for legal affairs considers that the proposal does not entail any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal, it shall inform the committee responsible.

In such a case, over and above the conditions laid down in Rules 156 and 157, amendments shall be admissible within the committee responsible only if they concern those parts of the proposal which contain changes.

However, if in accordance with point 8 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, the committee responsible intends also to submit amendments to the codified parts of the proposal, it shall immediately notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission, and the latter should inform the committee, prior to the vote pursuant to Rule 54, of its position on the amendments and whether or not it intends to withdraw the recast proposal."

Following the opinion of the Legal Service, whose representatives participated in the meetings of the Consultative Working Party examining the recast proposal, and in keeping with the recommendations of the draftsperson, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that the proposal in question does not include any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts with those changes, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.

In conclusion, after discussing it at its meeting of 17 September 2012, the Committee on Legal Affairs, by 17 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstentions(1), recommends that your Committee, as the committee responsible, proceed to examine the above proposal in accordance with Rule 87.

Yours faithfully,

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE

Encl.: Opinion of the Consultative Working Party.

(1)

Members present : Charalampos Angourakis; Raffaele Baldassarre; Edit Bauer; Luigi Berlinguer; Sebastian Valentin Bodu; Piotr Borys; Françoise Castex; Christian Engström; Marielle Gallo; Eva Lichtenberger; Antonio Masip Hidalgo; Bernhard Rapkay; Evelyn Regner; Dagmar Roth-Behrendt; Rebecca Taylor; Alexandra Thein; Axel Voss; Cecilia Wikström; Tadeusz Zwiefka.


ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION

 

 

 

CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY

OF THE LEGAL SERVICES

Brussels, 18 July 2012

OPINION

             FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

                                                              THE COUNCIL

                                                              THE COMMISSION

Amended Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person) and to request comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (recast)

COM(2012)0254 of 30.5.2012 – 2008/0242(COD)

Having regard to the Inter-institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular to point 9 thereof, the Consultative Working Party consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission met on 14 and 20 June 2012 for the purpose of examining, among others, the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Commission.

At those meetings, an examination of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council recasting Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of "Eurodac" for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention and Council Regulation (EC) No 407/2002 of 28 February 2002 laying down certain rules to implement Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 concerning the establishment of "Eurodac" for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s establishing, by common accord, as follows.

1) As far as the explanatory memorandum is concerned, in order to be drafted in full compliance with the relevant requirements laid down by the Inter-institutional Agreement such a document should have specified which provisions of the earlier act remain unchanged in the proposal, as is provided for under point 6(a)(iii) of that agreement.

2) In the recast proposal, the following parts of text should have been marked with the grey-shaded type generally used for identifying substantive changes:

- in the title of the act, the final words "and to request comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice";

- in Article 8(1), introductory wording, in Article 24(1), (5) and (6) and in Article 26, the replacement of the words "Central Unit" with the word "Agency";

- in Article 9(3), the words "with exception to those transmitted in accordance with Article 10 point (b)";

- in Article 9(5), the replacement of the article number "5(1)" with the number "8(a) to (g)";

- in Article 17(4), the deletion of the words "and 6";

- in Article 24(2), the words "Article 14(2) and Article 17(2)";

- in Article 27(3), the deletion of the article number "12(4)(a)".

3) The existing wordings of Recitals 13, 14, 20 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 should have been present in the text of the recast proposal. Those wordings should have been identified by using the double strikethrough and the grey-shaded type generally used for marking substantive changes consisting of the proposed deletion of existing texts.

4) In Article 2(1)(c)(i) the reference made to "Article 6" appears to be inaccurate and should be replaced by a correct reference.

5) In Article 2(1)(c)(ii) the reference made to "Article 11" should be adapted so as to read as a reference made to "Article 14".

6) In Article 2(1)(c)(iii) the reference made to "Article 14" should be adapted so as to read as a reference made to "Article 17".

7) In Article 2(e) the reference made to "Article 18(4)" should be adapted so as to read as a reference made to "Article 25(4)".

8) In Article 8(1)(a), the words "applicants for asylum and the", appearing before the word "persons" in the existing wording of Article 3(3), first subparagraph, point (a), of Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000, should have been present and should have been identified with double strikethrough.

9) In Article 9(3), the words "by the Central Unit", appearing between the words "shall be compared" and "with the fingerprint data" in the existing wording of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000, should have been present and should have been identified with double strikethrough.

10) In Article 16(2), the reference made to "Article 28(3)" should be adapted so as to read as a reference made to "Article 27(3)".

11) In Article 29(13), the reference made to "paragraph 13" should be adapted so as to read as a reference made to "paragraph 11".

12) The existing wording of Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 should have been present and should have been identified with double strikethrough.

13) The introductory wording and points (a) and (b) of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 407/2002 should have been present in the recast text and should have been identified with double strikethrough. Point (c) of that same article should also have been present and should have been identified with double strikethrough and grey shaded type.

14) The existing wording of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 407/2002 should have been present in the recast text and should have been identified with double strikethrough.

In consequence, examination of the proposal has enabled the Consultative Working Party to conclude, without dissent, that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments other than those identified as such. The Working Party also concluded, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments, that the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing legal text, without any change in its substance.

C. PENNERA                                  H. LEGAL                            L. ROMERO REQUENA

Jurisconsult                                       Jurisconsult                            Director General


MINORITY OPINION (17.12.2012)

pursuant to Rule 52(3) of the Rules of Procedure

Sophia in 't Veld

Eurodac is a database storing fingerprints of asylum seekers, established in order to identify asylum seekers and the member state they first applied for asylum. Access to Eurodac by police and justice authorities is an undue extension of the purpose limitation of the database. The actual necessity of police and justice access to Eurodac has not been proven. Furthermore, allowing access to Eurodac will contribute to the stigmatisation of asylum seekers as potential criminals, which is worrying as asylum seekers are a vulnerable group asking for international protection. Agreeing to the access of police and justice authorities to the Eurodac database creates the undesired precedent of police and justice access to databases created for different purposes, without the essential proof of necessity.


PROCEDURE

Title

Establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints (recast version)

References

COM(2012)0254 – C7-0148/2012 – COM(2008)0825 – C6-0475/2008 – 2008/0242(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

3.12.2008

 

 

 

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

LIBE

19.10.2010

 

 

 

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary

JURI

19.10.2010

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Monica Luisa Macovei

15.10.2009

 

 

 

Discussed in committee

3.9.2012

11.10.2012

26.11.2012

 

Date adopted

17.12.2012

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

41

11

4

Members present for the final vote

Jan Philipp Albrecht, Edit Bauer, Rita Borsellino, Emine Bozkurt, Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski, Simon Busuttil, Carlos Coelho, Ioan Enciu, Frank Engel, Tanja Fajon, Hélène Flautre, Kinga Gál, Nathalie Griesbeck, Sylvie Guillaume, Salvatore Iacolino, Sophia in ‘t Veld, Lívia Járóka, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Timothy Kirkhope, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Monica Luisa Macovei, Véronique Mathieu, Nuno Melo, Louis Michel, Claude Moraes, Antigoni Papadopoulou, Georgios Papanikolaou, Carmen Romero López, Judith Sargentini, Birgit Sippel, Csaba Sógor, Rui Tavares, Nils Torvalds, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Wim van de Camp, Axel Voss, Renate Weber, Cecilia Wikström, Auke Zijlstra

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Cornelis de Jong, Mariya Gabriel, Franziska Keller, Petru Constantin Luhan, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Jan Mulder, Andres Perello Rodriguez, Hubert Pirker, Janusz Wojciechowski

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Ashley Fox, Constance Le Grip, Iosif Matula, Phil Prendergast, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Marita Ulvskog, Derek Vaughan

Date tabled

19.12.2012

Last updated: 5 June 2013Legal notice