POROČILO o predlogu Sklepa Sveta o izmenjavi podatkov, izpisanih iz kazenske evidence

3.2.2005 - (KOM(2004)0664 – C6‑0163/2004 – 2004/0238(CNS)) - *

Odbor za svoboščine in pravice državljanov, pravosodje in notranje zadeve
Poročevalec: Antonio Di Pietro

OSNUTEK ZAKONODAJNE RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA

o predlogu Sklepa Sveta o izmenjavi podatkov, izpisanih iz kazenske evidence

(KOM(2004)0664 – C6‑0163/2004 – 2004/0238(CNS))

(Postopek posvetovanja)

Evropski parlament,

–   ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Svetu (KOM(2004)0664)[1],

–   ob upoštevanju členov 31 in 34(2)(c) Pogodbe EU,

– ob upoštevanju člena 39(1) Pogodbe EU, v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom (C6‑0163/2004),

–   ob upoštevanju členov 93 in 51 svojega Poslovnika,

–   ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za svoboščine in pravice državljanov, pravosodje in notranje zadeve (A6‑0020/2005),

1.  odobri predlog Komisije, kakor je bil spremenjen;

2.  poziva Komisijo, naj ustrezno spremeni svoj predlog, na podlagi člena 250(2) Pogodbe ES;

3.  poziva Svet, naj obvesti Parlament, če namerava odstopati od besedila, ki ga je Parlament odobril;

4.  poziva Svet, naj se ponovno posvetuje s Parlamentom, če namerava bistveno spremeniti predlog Komisije;

5.  naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj stališče Parlamenta posreduje Svetu in Komisiji.

Besedilo, ki ga predlaga Komisija	Predlogi sprememb Parlamenta
Predlog spremembe 1 Člen 3
Vsak osrednji organ nemudoma obvesti osrednje organe drugih držav članic o obsodbah državljanov navedenih držav članic, evidentiranih v nacionalni kazenski evidenci in o pomembnih naknadnih vpisih v kazensko evidenco, ki se nanjo nanašajo.	Vsak osrednji organ nemudoma, v vsakem primeru pa najkasneje v treh mesecih obvesti osrednje organe drugih držav članic o obsodbah državljanov navedenih držav članic, evidentiranih v nacionalni kazenski evidenci.
Obrazložitev
Učinkovitost zadevnega predloga je odvisna od pogostosti, s katero osrednji organi držav članic ažurirajo podatke, ki jih vsebujejo kazenskih evidence. Zadnji del člena je črtan, da bi bilo besedilo bolj razumljivo (izpustitev odvečnih podrobnosti, ki bi med uporabniki sistema lahko povzročile zmedo).
Predlog spremembe 2 Člen 4, odstavek 2
2. Osrednji organ zaprošene države članice pošlje odgovor osrednjemu organu države prosilke takoj in v vsakem primeru v roku, ki ne presega pet delovnih dni od prejema zahtevka pod pogoji, ki jih določa nacionalna zakonodaja, na temelju obrazca za odgovor B, ki je priložen temu sklepu. Vključuje podatke, posredovane v skladu s členom 3.	2. Osrednji organ zaprošene države članice pošlje odgovor osrednjemu organu države prosilke v nujnih primerih v 48 urah, drugače pa v roku, ki ne presega deset delovnih dni od prejema zahtevka pod pogoji, ki jih določa nacionalna zakonodaja, na temelju obrazca za odgovor B, ki je priložen temu sklepu. Vključuje podatke, posredovane v skladu s členom 3.
Obrazložitev
V nujnih primerih je 48 ur najkrajši čas, ki ga večina držav članic potrebuje za potrditev ali je bil posameznik pridržan ali ne. V drugih primerih lahko zaprošena država članica pošlje odgovor v roku desetih delovnih dni od prejema zahtevka.
Predlog spremembe 3 Člen 4, odstavek 3
3. K obrazcu za odgovor se priloži izjava o obsodbah.	3. K obrazcu za odgovor se priloži izjava o obsodbah, zapisanih v kazenski evidenci.
Obrazložitev
Namen predloga spremembe je narediti besedilo takoj razumljivo uporabnikom sistema.
Predlog spremembe 4 Člen 5, odstavek 1, točka (b)
b) za druge namene v mejah, ki jih določi zaprošena država, in v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo države prosilke.	b) za druge namene v mejah, ki jih na obrazcu določi država prosilka ter jih potrdi zaprošena država članica, in v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo države prosilke.
Obrazložitev
Če se osebni podatki posredujejo za namene, ki niso povezani s kazenskimi postopki, se morajo države prosilke in zaprošene države članice zavedati omejitevi, v okviru katerih se lahko zberejo taki podatki, in jih tudi medsebojno sprejeti.
Predlog spremembe 5 Člen 5, odstavek 2
2. Kadar so osebni podatki posredovani v skladu z odstavkom 1b) tega člena, zaprošena država članica lahko zaprosi državo članico prosilko, da jo obvesti o uporabi teh podatkov.	2. Kadar so osebni podatki posredovani v skladu z odstavkom 1b) tega člena, država članica prosilka obvesti zaprošeno državo članico glede uporabe teh podatkov.
Obrazložitev
Če se osebni podatki posredujejo za namene, ki niso povezani s kazenskimi postopki, je zaprošeno državo članico treba obvestiti glede uporabe podatkov s strani države članice prosilke.
Predlog spremembe 6 Člen 5, odstavek 3a (novo)
	3a. Konvencija Sveta Evrope o varstvu posameznikov glede avtomatske obdelave osebnih podatkov z dne 28. januarja 1981 in člen 23 Konvencije Sveta Evrope o medsebojni pravni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah med državami članicami Evropske unije z dne 29. maja 2000 se uporabita za ta člen.
Obrazložitev
V besedilu je treba pojasniti, da je spoštovanje veljavnih Konvencij eden od pogojev, ki urejajo uporabo osebnih podatkov. Idealno bi bilo sklicevanje na nova pravila, za sprejetje katerih se je pred nekaj časa obvezala EU, da bi zaščitila podatke v primerih, ko so le-ti uporabljeni za namene vzdrževanja javne varnosti. Če so takšna pravila sprejeta pred zadevnim besedilom, je treba sklic iz predlagane spremembe ažurirati.
Predlog spremembe 7 Člen 8
Države članice začnejo izvajati ta sklep čim prej in v vsakem primeru najpozneje 30. junija 2005.	Države članice začnejo ta sklep izvajati čim prej in v vsakem primeru v roku šestih mesecev od datuma objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
Obrazložitev
Določanje rokov vnaprej ni smotrno; boljše bi bilo počakati na konec postopka in določiti časovni okvir.
Predlog spremembe 8 Obrazec A, točka (a), tretja alinea
Kontaktna oseba:	Kontaktna služba:
Obrazložitev
Pripraviti je treba vse potrebno za predvsem občutljive, kompleksne preiskave, v katerih mora identiteta sodnikov, ki jih vodijo, biti zaupna zaradi njihove varnosti.

• [1]  Še neobjavljeno v UL.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

1.        Legislative framework

Contrary to what might appear at first sight to be the case, the Commission's proposal for a decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record constitutes an important, necessary and urgent technical-adjustment measure within the EU's area of freedom, security and justice.

In each of the 25 Member States there are special registers in which the convictions handed down by the Member States' judicial authorities are recorded, but the legal instrument used by the Member States for the purpose of exchanging important information of this nature dates back to the 1959 Council of Europe Convention[1].

The Commission has taken it upon itself to make improvements of a technical nature to the relevant legislation, following the wave of anger and revulsion which swept across Europe in the wake of the horrific cases of paedophilia which occurred not so long ago in the Ardennes, involving both France and Belgium. Those cases highlighted not only the investigators' undeniable negligence but also the total lack of communication between two founder Member States.

Leaving aside that particular (and highly disturbing) case, it is clear that a qualitative improvement in the exchange of information between Member States is urgently needed - not least in view of the fact that the terrorist groups which have carried out attacks in Europe and in other parts of the world are part of a well-established international network which includes perpetrators of serious organised crime who have long been involved in criminal activities (from drugs trafficking to money laundering) which fan out way beyond the borders of individual countries.

The next few years will be crucial in the European-integration process as regards criminal matters - in which connection all the necessary action will be taken in order to ensure that the people of the EU have access to justice in criminal affairs which is genuinely effective, independent and transparent.

The Commission has already announced that, over the next few months, more complex initiatives will be brought forward, such as the White Paper on the exchange of information relating to convictions, prohibition measures and the mutual recognition thereof within the EU (to be published in January 2005), the framework decision on the recognition amongst EU Member States of decisions to convict (due to be submitted at the end of February 2005) and the decision on the computerised system for the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record.

There are, however, still objective technical and legal difficulties to be overcome before an operational computerised system for the exchange between Member States of information on criminal convictions can be set up and it is unlikely that - even according to the most optimistic forecasts - such a system can be brought into operation before 2008/2010.

This means that the decision which is currently being examined by Parliament will not have any practical, tangible effects on the people of the EU for at least five years.

2.        Analysis of the Commission proposal

The legal basis for the proposed decision is Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Nice Treaty; it provides for Parliament merely to be consulted.

The main purpose of the Commission's proposal for a decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record is - as indicated - to suggest practical ways of remedying the shortcomings in the current system, and it proposes action in just a few key areas:

(a)       it requires the Member States to notify each other straight away regarding any of their nationals who have been convicted of an offence; under the 1959 Convention the Member States are required to do so just once a year;

(b)       it establishes a five-day time limit for the receipt of a reply from the requested Member State;

(c)       with an obvious view to simplifying the practical data-transfer procedures, it provides that a request from a requesting Member State and a reply from a requested Member State must be accompanied by a standard form which is identical in all the Member States;

(d)       it provides definitions of 'criminal record' and 'conviction', since the legal systems in force in the 25 EU Member States do not currently recognise a single concept of 'criminal record', which may contain very different information on individuals, depending on the Member State concerned.

3.        Proposed amendments

The rapporteur broadly agrees with the Commission's overall approach and he has merely proposes a few, well-focused amendments designed to enhance the legislative text (which will be a practical tool in the hands of those responsible for operating the judicial system) and making it easier to use.

Amendment 1 - Article 3: Own-initiative information on convictions

With regard to this basic issue, the rapporteur considers that each central authority should inform the other Member States' central authorities of convictions of nationals of those Member States which are registered in the national criminal record immediately or in any event within three months. If the legislative text were to retain the vague concept whereby the central authorities will inform the other central authorities without delay, this could lead to unjustified delays in what should be a regular periodic updating of the central authorities' databases.

Amendments 2 and 3 - Article 4: Request for information on convictions

With regard to this aspect the rapporteur considers (in accordance with what has already been agreed by the Council) that a reply from a requested Member State may arrive within 10 working days of the date upon which the request was received (instead of the five working days proposed by the Commission - a time limit which would be difficult to meet), but that in urgent cases a reply should in all cases be received within 48 hours (which in many Member States is the minimum length of time required for it to be confirmed that an individual is or is not being held in custody).

Again in order to make the text more immediately comprehensible to users of the system, the rapporteur considers it useful to specify that the reply form from the requested Member State must be accompanied by a statement of the convictions which appear in the criminal record.

Amendments 4, 5 and 6 - Article 5: Conditions for the use of personal data

This article is an extremely delicate one, and the rapporteur is aware that the requirements of investigative activities (where speedy exchange of information is essential) must be balanced against the need to safeguard and protect personal data.

However, it is a condition of the mutual trust which must underpin relations between Member States that where personal data are forwarded for purposes other than criminal proceedings, the information gathered may be used solely and exclusively within the limits specified by the requesting Member State and accepted by the requested Member State.

Furthermore, as a further safeguard that there will not be misunderstandings of any kind between Member States, whenever personal data are forwarded for purposes other than criminal proceedings, the Member State to which such a request is issued must automatically be informed of the use made of it by the requesting Member State.

Lastly, the rapporteur considers that, pending the advent of a single text which will protect the use of personal data in this third-pillar field, the wording of the text must contain a reference (already present in the recitals) to the rules which protect personal data on the basis of the 28 January 1981 Council of Europe Convention on the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data and Article 23 of the 29 May 2000 Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union.

The ideal thing would be a reference to the new rules which the EU some time ago undertook to adopt with a view to protecting data in cases where the latter are used for the purpose of maintaining public security. If such rules are adopted before the text under consideration is, the reference contained in the proposed amendment should be updated.

Amendment 7 - Article 8: Implementation

With regard to the timing of this decision (which will be directly applicable in all the Member States), the rapporteur considers that deadlines (which might not be met) should not be laid down in advance; it would be better to wait for a definite timeframe to emerge once the procedure is concluded.

The decision must in any event be implemented by the Member States as soon as possible and at the latest within six months of the date upon which it is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Amendment 8 - Form

With reference to the standard forms proposed by the Commission, the rapporteur considers - as the Council has already agreed - that Form A (intended to be used by the requesting Member State in order to issue a request) and Form B (intended to be used by the requested Member State in order to reply to the request) should for practical reasons be combined into one.

However, he considers it essential that, in the part containing the information relating to the requesting Member State, 'Contact person' be replaced by the more impersonal 'Contact office'.

Provision should obviously be made for particularly delicate, complex investigations in which the identity of the magistrates conducting them needs to be kept confidential in the interests of their safety.

• [1]  Council of Europe, European Treaties series, no. 30

POSTOPEK

Naslov	Predlog Sklepa Sveta o izmenjavi podatkov, izpisanih iz kazenske evidence
Referenčni dokumenti	KOM(2004) 0664 – C6‑0163/2004 -2004/0238(CNS)
Pravna podlaga	člen 39 (1), EU
Datum posvetovanja z EP	27.10.2004
Podlaga v Poslovniku	člen 93 in člen 51
Pristojni odbor    Datum razglasitve na zasedanju	LIBE 16.11.2004
Odbori, zaprošeni za mnenje   Datum razglasitve na zasedanju	JURI 16.11.2004
Odbori, ki niso podali mnenja   Datum sklepa	JURI 24.11.2004
Okrepljeno sodelovanje   Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Poročevalec   Datum imenovanja	Antonio Di Pietro 25.11.2004
Nadomeščeni(-a) poročevalec(-ka)
Obravnava v odboru	18.1.2004	1.2.2005
Datum sprejetja	1.2.2005
Izid končnega glasovanja	za: proti: vzdržani:		43 1 2
Poslanci, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju	Alexander Nuno Alvaro, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Johannes Blokland, Mario Borghezio, Jean-Louis Bourlanges, Mihael Brejc, Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, Michael Cashman, Giusto Catania, Jean-Marie Cavada, Charlotte Cederschiöld, Carlos Coelho, António Costa, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Rosa Díez González, Antoine Duquesne, Kinga Gál, Patrick Gaubert, Adeline Hazan, Timothy Kirkhope, Ewa Klamt, Ole Krarup, Stavros Lambrinidis, Romano Maria La Russa, Henrik Lax, Edith Mastenbroek, Jaime Mayor Oreja, Hartmut Nassauer, Bogdan Pęk, Martine Roure, Inger Segelström, Manfred Weber, Tatjana Ždanoka
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju	Frederika Brepoels, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Camiel Eurlings, Ignasi Guardans Cambó, Sophia in 't Veld, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Vincent Peillon, Herbert Reul, Marie-Line Reynaud, Bogusław Sonik, Jan Zahradil
Namestniki (člen 178(2)), navzoči pri končnem glasovanju	Georgios Papastamkos
Datum predložitve - A6	3.2.2005			A6–0020/2005
Pripombe