MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the state of play as regards SIS II and VIS
19.10.2009
pursuant to Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure
Tatjana Ždanoka on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
B7‑0103/2009
European Parliament resolution on the state of play as regards SIS II and VIS
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas the Schengen Information System (SIS) was created as the main compensatory measure in the context of free movement within the territory of the Schengen states,
B. whereas the current SIS is a large-scale database, operating as a joint information system which allows the competent authorities in the Member States, by means of an automatic investigation process, to search for and obtain data on persons and objects,
C. whereas personal data that can be held on the current SIS are expressly limited to: name, first name, first letter of the second name, aliases, physical characteristics, place and date of birth, sex, nationality, whether the persons concerned are armed or violent, the reason for the alert, and the action to be taken,
D. whereas sensitive information concerning racial origin, political, religious or other beliefs, or matters related to health or of a sexual nature may not be entered in the current SIS,
E. whereas judicial authorities, visa and immigration authorities, Europol and Eurojust, vehicle registration authorities, and border and customs authorities already have access to the SIS database to carry out their specific tasks,
F. whereas the SIS II Regulation and Decision state that SIS II has been established to enable the competent authorities of the Member States to cooperate by exchanging information for the purpose of controls on persons and objects; whereas it is designed to contribute to maintaining a high level of security within an area without internal border controls,
G. whereas a large number of authorities access SIS for a purpose other than that for which it was originally designed, in particular for police information purposes; whereas access for security services would be another step in this process, like the transmission of data from the SIS to other states or organisations and the interlinking of alerts,
H. whereas asylum authorities will be given access to data on persons subject to a re-entry ban which is in keeping with the proposed return directive,
I. whereas biometrics data (photographs and fingerprints) can be introduced in SIS II and VIS,
J. whereas provision is made for an extension of the conservation periods for basically all alerts, without putting any justification forward: immigration data would be kept for five years instead of three; data concerning persons wanted for arrest and surrender or extradition, on persons to ensure protection or prevent threats and on persons wanted for judicial procedure for ten years instead of three years; data on persons for discrete surveillance or specific checks for three years instead of one year,
K. whereas, on 6 December 2001, the Commission was given a mandate to develop the second-generation SIS, to come into force in March 2007,
L. whereas numerous problems and delays have meant that the new system has still not begun operations, and doubts have been cast on the viability of the project,
M. whereas a number of countries, including Ireland, the United Kingdom, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Liechtenstein, will not be integrated in the SIS system before a solution is found,
N. whereas the JHA Council of 4 and 5 June 2009 adopted a set of conclusions on the new orientation of the Schengen Information System (SIS II), deciding that the development of the system should continue on the basis of the existing SIS II project, but with the alternative scenario of a SIS 1+ as a back-up solution,
O. whereas two technical tests (so-called milestone tests) will have to be made, the first at the end of 2009 and the second in the summer of 2010,
P. whereas the forecast is now that SIS II could begin operations only in the last quarter of 2011,
Q. whereas VIS is also being delayed, given that the date of deployment as of the end of 2009 will not be met and that the start of operations might be delayed beyond September 2010, due to certain problems in setting up the central VIS by the Commission and with regard to preparations at national level in the Member States,
R. whereas there are some positive aspects as regards data protection and data quality and security; whereas SIS II will be transformed into a genuine EU Agency, which means more democratic scrutiny,
1. Expresses its deep concern about the introduction of biometric data into VIS and SIS II, the increasing number of authorities having access to the systems and, in general terms, the transformation of SIS from a compensatory measure deemed necessary to guarantee free movement of persons in the Schengen area into a general system of control and surveillance;
2. Recalls the need for a coherent legal framework for data protection based on the highest standards and the necessary adoption of a legal in instrument on minimal safeguards in procedural law as a precondition for the full implementations of those new systems;
3. Denounces the Council's refusal to use codecision procedures for the implementing measures;
4. Asks to be informed by the Commission and Council on the results of the technical milestone 1 test, taking place on 22 December, immediately after its completion and to be informed without delay on the future steps to be taken;
5. Calls for full transparency as regards the implementation process, including the financial aspects, and requests to be informed, as co-legislator, on whether the so-called milestone 1 and 2 tests are still within the scope of the present SIS II development contract or whether they will have to be treated as additional requirements and what extra costs are envisaged in this case;
6. Requests to know if any penalties have been imposed on the contractor for the delays and technical errors that led to the failure of the earlier tests, and if applicable, the amount of these; also requests to know the extra costs involved in these delays and technical errors, as incurred by the need to carry out the new tests and the extended timetable for the deployment of SIS II;
7. Calls for concerted and coordinated efforts from the Commission and the Member States to avoid the same scenario as with the development of the SIS II being repeated in relation to the VIS;
8. Asks the Commission and Council to give a reasoned explanation of the grounds on which they continue to have confidence in the current contractor and in its ability to successfully take the VIS and SIS II systems forward without further delays;
9. Stresses that the Commission and the Council must associate Parliament in any decision related to the development of SIS II and VIS, in particular if the results of the tests are not satisfactory, thus leading to a change of direction regarding both the SIS II and the VIS projects, and which might include the cancelling of the present contract with the company responsible for them;
10. Calls upon the Commission to clarify whether the possible cancellation of the contract will automatically lead, in the case of the SIS II project, to the back-up or contingency solution, and to outline the possible effects on the VIS project;
11. Stresses that is should be kept constantly informed on the state of play as regards the deployment of the SIS II and VIS;
12. Instructs its competent committee to monitor this issue closely and to prepare a follow-up resolution for plenary as soon as new developments warrant it, and at the latest after the completion of the milestone 1 test;
13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.