SELETUSKIRI
Esialgne mõjuhinnang Prümi raamistikus automatiseeritud andmevahetuse tugevdamise
kohta
1. Ülevaade ja eesmärk
Eesti vastused antakse Euroopa Komisjoni poolt 11. augustil 2020. a avaldatud Prümi
raamistikus automatiseeritud andmevahetuse tugevdamise esialgse mõjuhinnangu/ teekaardi
kohta.
2008. aastal vastu võetud Prümi otsuste1 näol on tegemist ühe Euroopa Liidu tasandi ja
liikmesriikide õiguskaitseasutuste koostööd toetava terrorismi ja piiriülese kuritegevuse vastase
võitluse põhiinstrumendiga. Otsused katavad kahte eraldiseisvat piiriülese koostöö
komponenti:
1. Automaatne DNA ja sõrmejälgede viiteandmete2 ning sõidukite registreerimisandmete
vahetamine;
2. Piiriülene politseikoostöö, mis hõlmab muu hulgas teabevahetust terrorismi leviku
tõkestamiseks piiriüleste suuremate intsidentide kohta, ühisoperatsioone ja –patrulle ning
abi seoses massiürituste, katastroofide ja tõsiste õnnetustega.
Prümi mehhanismi enam kui kümneaastane rakendusperiood on esile toonud mitmeid
vajakajäämisi, mis liikmesriikide vahel tõhusat infovahetust pärsivad. Samuti on oluliselt
muutunud Euroopa Liidu andmekaitseraamistik. Kehtivate põhimõtete ülevaatamise ning uue
algatuse kaudu soovib Euroopa Komisjon luua liikmesriikide õiguskaitseasutustele
hästitoimiva teabevahetusraamistiku, et pädevatele asutustele oleks tagatud õigeaegne ning
toimiv juurdepääs nende tööks ja seadusandluses ette nähtud vajalikule teabele, tagades
seejuures nii põhiõiguste kui isikuandmete kaitse. Konkreetsete eesmärkidena toob Euroopa
Komisjon esialgses mõjuhinnangus välja alltoodu, pakkudes nende saavutamiseks ka esmased,
võimalikud lahendusvariandid.
1. Tabamustejärgse infovahetuse kiirendamine ja ühtlustamine;
2. Kriminaaluurimiste eesmärgil liikmesriikide kuriteo- või muudes registrites olemasolevate
täiendavate andmekategooriate automaatse vahetamise võimaldamine;
3. Olemasoleva infosüsteemi rakendamise, kasutamise ja ülalpidamise lihtsustamine;
4. Europoli poolt kolmandatelt riikidelt saadud teabe otsimise ja võrdlemise võimaldamine;
5. Hõlmatud andmeekategooriate automaatse teabevahetuse tõhustamine;
6. Andmekaitsepõhimõtete kaasajastamine.
1
Nõukogu otsus 2008/615/JSK, 23. juuni 2008, piiriülese koostöö tõhustamise kohta, eelkõige seoses
terrorismi- ja piiriülese kuritegevuse vastase võitlusega ja Nõukogu otsus 2008/616/JSK, millega rakendatakse
otsust 2008/615/JSK piiriülese koostöö tõhustamise kohta, eelkõige seoses terrorismi- ja piiriülese kuritegevuse
vastase võitlusega.
2
Eestil toimib sõrmejälgede andmevahetus toimib hetkel 19 EL liikmesriigiga ja DNA-andmevahetus 21 EL
liikmesriigiga.
Esialgsele mõjuhinnangule vastamise tähtaeg on 6. oktoober 2020 ning tekstiga on võimalik
tutvuda siin: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12563-
Strengthening-the-automated-data-exchange-under-the-Pr-m-framework
2. Koostajad
Vastuse koostasid Siseministeeriumi korrakaitse- ja kriminaalpoliitika osakonna nõunik Liisa
Abel (
[email protected], 6125048) ja Euroopa Liidu ja välissuhete osakonna
nõunik Birgit Paal (
[email protected], 6125059). Valdkonna eest vastutab
sisejulgeoleku-, korrakaitse- ja migratsioonipoliitika asekantsler Veiko Kommusaar
(
[email protected], 6125009).
3. Avalikule konsultatsioonile vastamise üldpõhimõtted
Eesti vastuse kujundamisel on tuginetud Eesti Euroopa Liidu poliitika 2020-2021
prioriteetidele (heaks kiidetud 21.11 Vabariigi Valitsuse istungil); Eesti seisukohtadele
Euroopa Liidu justiits- ja siseküsimuste nõukogu 06.-07.06.2019. a istungil (heaks kiidetud
Vabariigi Valitsuse 30.05.2019. a ja Riigikogu Euroopa Liidu asjade komisjoni 03.06.2019. a
istungil) ning Eesti siseturvalisuse arengukava 2020–2030 koostamise ettepanek (tutvustatud
Vabariigi Valitsuse 12.09.2019. a istungil. Arengukava on ministeeriumide poolt
kooskõlastatud, läbinud avaliku konsultatsiooni ning esitatud Vabariigi Valitsusele
arutamiseks).
Täiendavad ja üksikasjalikud Vabariigi Valitsuse seisukohad kujundatakse teemaga
edasiliikumise järgmistes etappides – Euroopa Komisjoni poolt kavandatava avaliku
konsultatsiooni (eeldatav avaldamisaeg 2020. a III kvartal) ja/või konkreetse õigusliku
ettepaneku (2021. a II kvartal) käigus.
4. Eesti esialgsed seisukohad mõjuhinnangus püstitatud eesmärkide ja pakutud
valikuvariantide kohta
Alljärgnevalt on esitatud Eesti esialgsed eelistused Euroopa Komisjoni poolt mõjuhinnangus
esitatud eesmärkide ja pakutud lahendusvariantide lõikes.
4.1 Eesti toetab tabamustejärgse infovahetuse kiirendamist ja ühtlustamist,
kehtestades tabamuse korral minimaalne edastamisele kuuluv
andmekomplekt, kinnitades andmete edastamisele kindlad ajaraamid ning
määrates selleks üks ühine infokanal.
Toetame esialgses mõjuhinnangus toodud lahendusvarianti 2. Seejuures on oluline, et andmete
väljastamisel säiliks andmeid omava liikmesriigi kontroll edastatavate andmete osas ning et
liikmesriikides oleks tagatud automaatsus tabamuste järgsete vastuste koostamisel. Minimaalse
edastatava andmekomplekti laiendamise puhul tuleb siseriiklikult arvestada täiendava
infotehnoloogilise arendustöö vajadusega.
.
4.2 Eesti toetab ettepanekut võimaldada liikmesriikide kuriteo- või muudes
registrites olemasolevate täiendavate andmekategooriate, eelkõige
näokujutiste ja juhilubade andmete automaatse vahetamist
Pooldame esialgses mõjuhinnangus pakutud lahendusvarianti 2, mis näeb ette täiendavate,
olemasolevate andmekategooriate vahetamist Prümi raamistikus. Eelkõige peame otstarbekaks
juhilubade (driving licences) andmete ja näokujutiste (facial images) andmete vahetamist.
Esialgses mõjuhinnangus pakutud ballistika (ballistics) andmete vahetamise eelduseks on
liikmesriikide tehniliste lahenduste ühtlustamine, võimaldades selleks muu hulgas ka Euroopa
Liidu poolsete vahendite kasutamist. Ballistikaandmete (ballistics) osas sooviksime päringute
tegemise võimalust teiste riikide andmekogudesse, kus sellised andmekogud on olemas.
Võimalike politseiandmete (police records) vahetamise võimaldamise osas jääme hetkel
äraootavale seisukohale. Esmalt on tarvis selgelt defineerida nii politseiandmete mõiste kui
ulatus. Ka täiendavate andmekategooriate lisamisel automaatsele andmevahetusele kaasneb
siseriiklik vajadus täiendava arendustöö järele.
4.3 Olemasoleva infosüsteemi rakendamise, kasutamise ja ülalpidamise
lihtsustamiseks toetame ettepanekut võtta kahepoolsete ühenduste asemel
kasutusele keskne ruuter. Pikemas perspektiivis peame oluliseks leida Euroopa
Liidu tasandil võimalused Prümi andmebaaside ühendamiseks arendatava
koostalitlusvõime paketi infrastruktuuriga ning päringute tegemiseks Euroopa
otsinguportaalist.
Kehtiv, riikide kahepoolsetel ühendustel põhinev teabevahetussüsteem on loonud olukorra, kus
kõik Euroopa Liidu liikmesriigid ei oma omavahelist andmevahetusvõimekust. Põhjuseks on
eelkõige eraldi ühenduste loomisega kaasnevad suured kulud nii süsteemi ülalpidamiseks kui
vajaliku inimressursi tagamiseks. Keskse ruuteri olemasolu, mille mõned funktsioonid
(statistika, tehniline hooldus ning monitoorimine) toimiksid EL-i tasemel (esialgse
mõjuhinnangu variant 2), võimaldaks luua andmevahetusvõimekuse kõigi EL-i liikmesriikide
vahel.
4.4 Europoli poolt kolmandatelt riikidelt saadud teabe otsimise ja võrdlemise
võimaldamisel pooldame Europolile juurdepääsu võimaldamist Prüm
andmevahetusele andmete võrdlemise eesmärgil, välistades seejuures
informatsiooni edastamise kolmandatele riikidele. Kontroll andmete
kasutamise üle peab jääma liikmesriikidele.
Täna on Europolile vahetult laekunud teave kolmandatest riikidest kättesaadav üksnes Europoli
infosüsteemides. Europolile juurdepääsu võimaldamine Prümi andmevahetusele ilma õiguseta
edastada informatsiooni kolmandatele riikidele, nagu näeb ette Euroopa Komisjoni
lahendusvariant 2, tähendaks ühtlasi ka Europoli andmebaaside avamist teistele EL
liikmesriikidele otsingute tegemiseks. Seni, kuni pole piisavalt põhjendatud ja tõestatud
Europoli sellekohane vajadus, ei pea me õigeks ametile iseseiseva otsustusõiguse andmist
liikmesriikide andmete töötlemiseks ja liigutamiseks.
4.5 Leiame, et Prümi raamistikku hõlmatud andmekategooriate kohaldamisala
laiendamine muu hulgas kadunud isikute ja tundmatute inimsäilmete
tuvastamiseks aitaks kaasa andmevahetuse tõhustamisele.
Esialgses mõjuhinnangus leiab Euroopa Komisjon, et 2008. aastast muutumatuna püsinud
Prümi rakendusotsuse põhimõtted on paljuski aegunud – oluliselt on muutunud nii
kriminalistika kui infotehnoloogia. Tulenevalt erinevustest liikmesriikide seadusandlusest ei
ole alati võimalik kasutada Prümi raamistikku hõlmatud DNA ja sõrmejälgede andmeid
kadunud isikute ja tuvastamata inimsäilmete otsimiseks. Hõlmatud andmekategooriate
kohaldamisala laiendamine nimetatud kategooriatele (Euroopa Komisjoni lahendusvariant 3)
aitaks kaasa andmevahetuspraktikate ühtlustamisele ning kuritegude avastamise tõhustamisele.
4.6 Andmekaitse reeglite tõhustamisest
Dokumendist ei selgu, mida andmekaitse põhimõtete kaasajastamine sisuliselt tähendaks,
mistõttu Eesti ei oma käesoleval ajahetkel selgeid eelistusi kuuenda punkti osas. Samas võib
oletada, et valik 1 seaks vähem piiranguid info liikumisele võrreldes valikuga 2. Kui planeeritav
ulatus peaks muutuma (lepitakse kokku ligipääsu ulatuse laiendamises võrreldes eeltooduga)
tuleks ka andmekaitse reeglite osas seisukohta täiendada.
5. Arvamuse saamine ja kooskõlastamine
Tagasiside esialgsele mõjuhinnangule on koostatud koostöös Justiitsministeeriumi, Politsei- ja
Piirivalveameti, Siseministeeriumi infotehnoloogia- ja arenduskeskuse ning Eesti
Kohtuekspertiisi Instituudiga ja kooskõlastatud Riigikantseleiga.
Euroopa Komisjonile edastatav inglisekeelne vastus on ära toodud Lisas 1.
Lisa 1. Estonia’s preliminary feedback to the combined evaluation roadmap/Inception Impact
Assessment on the planned „Strengthening the automated data exchange under the Prüm
framework“ initiative
Below, Estonia’s Ministry of the Interior, having consulted with competent stakeholders, presents its
feedback on the shortcomings, objectives and possible options for the way forward outlined in the
combined evaluation roadmap/Inception Impact Assessment on the planned „Strengthening the
automated data exchange under the Prüm framework“ initiative. The preferences and feedback is
preliminary and non-exhaustive. Detailed positions will be developed at later stages of the planned
initative.
1. Speed up and streamline the hit-follow-up exchange process
We support the goal set out in Option 2, i.e. adopting minimum standards for the data set to be provided
by the requested Member State, a timeframe and a channel for data transfer once the requesting Member
State has confirmed a hit. Furthermore, it is important that the Member State providing the requested
data would retain control over the provision of the data whilst ensuring automation of the post-hit
exchange process.
2. Enable automated exchange of additional data categories that are available in Member States´
criminal or other databases for the purpose of criminal investigations
Estonia, overall, welcomes automation, standardisation and initiatives aimed at optimising different
processes as this facilitates the increase of data exchange capabilities. Provided that legal grounds for
acquiring and exchange of data exist, adding one or several additional categories of data available in
Member States’ criminal databases for automated search and comparison under the Prüm framework
(Option 2) would bring additional value to the functioning of the framework. From the options provided,
we support enabling automated exchange of driving licences (b) and facial images contained in Member
States’ criminal investigations databases (c). For adding ballistics (d), Member States’ technical
solutions and capabilities would need to be harmonised at first. For the latter, enabling EU’s funding
should be considered. Finally, as regards a limited data set from police records (a), before we can
consider adding the category, clear definition on the „police records“ and its scope is necessary.
3. Facilitate the implementation, use and maintenance of the information system
To facilitate the implementation, use and maintenance of the information system, Estonia, at this stage,
considers Option 2, where the decentralised architecture of the Prüm network will be maintained but a
central router will be implemented, as the feasible way forward. We agree that the existing practice
based on bilateral connections between Member states is not viable and has led to a situation where, due
to financial, technical or other resource limitations, not all EU Member States have set up data exchange
channels. Setting up a central router would help to solve these issues and ensure data exchange between
all EU Member States. Furthermore, we consider it important to seek synergies and ways of creating
links between the Prüm and the interoperability frameworks so as in the future, once the system is in
place, it would be possible to use the functionalities of European Search Portal also for the information
exchange under Prüm mechanism.
4. Enable search and comparison of data received by Europol from 3rd countries
Estonia supports a solution outlined in Option 2 where Europol would participate in the Prüm data
exchange mechanism for the purpose of crosschecking data received from 3rd countries and establishing
links between the information received from 3rd countries and Member States’ databases with strong
safeguards to ensure that there will be no onward transmission of information to 3rd countries. In doing
so, control over the use of data must remain in Member States’ competence.
5. Improve the automated exchange of existing data categories
We agree that by making more structural changes in the existing automated exchange, such as extending
the scope of the Prüm framework to explicitly allow using DNA and dactyloscopic queries for searching
missing persons and unidentified human remains (Option 3) would improve the efficiency of the Prüm
framework.
6. Provide high level of data protection
As the combined evaluation roadmap/ inception impact assessment lacks sufficient information on the
planned changes, the need for possible changes in the existing data protection principles need to be
assessed at a later stage, considering the final proposals of the planned legislative initiative.
29.12.2020 nr 5-1/57-1
Euroopa Komisjoni avalik konsultatsioon - Prümi
otsused
Head partnerid!
Euroopa Komisjon on käivitanud Prümi otsuste osas avaliku konsultatsiooni. Osaliselt tugineb
konsultatsioon 2020. a suvel läbi viidud Prümi raamistikus toimuva automaatse teabevahetuse
tugevdamise esialgsele mõjuhinnangule laekunud tagasisidele.
Avalik konsultatsioon (küsimustik), mõjuhinnangu paber ja Eesti antud esialgne tagasiside
Euroopa Komisjonile on leitavad siit: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12563-Strengthening-the-automated-data-exchange-under-the-Pr-m-framework
ning on lisatud ka käesolevale kirjale. Tänan Teid kõiki mõjuhinnangu kohta sisendi andmise
eest!
Kuna tegemist on riiklikult olulise teemaga, annab nüüd avaldatud avalik konsultatsioon
täiendava võimaluse arvamuste ja eelistuste esitamiseks Prümi otsuste tuleviku osas. Teie
täiendavat tagasisidet kasutame Vabariigi Valitsuse seisukohtade kujundamiseks.
2021. a teises kvartalis plaanib Euroopa Komisjon tulla välja ka Prümi määruse ettepanekuga.
Palun teie seisukohti koos selgitustega Prümi otsuste tuleviku kohta ning küsimustikule esitatud
vastuseid hiljemalt 20. jaanuariks 2021.
Kõikide küsimuste korral palun lahkesti võtta ühendust Liisa Abeli või Birgit Paaliga.
Lugupidamisega ja tervitades
(allkirjastatud digitaalselt)
Henry Timberg
Pikk 61 / 15065 Tallinn / 612 5008 /
[email protected] / www.siseministeerium.ee
Registrikood 70000562
Osakonnajuhataja
sisejulgeoleku-, korrakaitse- ja
migratsioonipoliitika asekantsleri
ülesannetes
Liisa Abel 5352 2781
[email protected]
Birgit Paal 5912 5609
[email protected]
Pikk 61 / 15065 Tallinn / 612 5008 /
[email protected] / www.siseministeerium.ee
Registrikood 70000562
Public consultation on strengthening the
automated data exchange under the Prüm
framework
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Introduction
Serious and organised crime in Europe knows no borders. Fighting national and cross-border crime
requires daily operational cooperation and information exchange between Member States’ law enforcement
authorities.
At EU level, the so-called Prüm Decisions (Council Decisions 2008/615/JHA and 2008/616/JHA of 23 June
2008) are one of the key instruments for supporting cooperation between law enforcement authorities to
fight cross-border crime. Automated exchange of data under the Prüm framework allows national law
enforcement authorities responsible for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences to search and
compare DNA[1], dactyloscopic[2] and certain vehicle registration data[3]. Member States give each other
access to an extraction of their national DNA, dactyloscopic databases established for the purpose of
criminal investigations, and to certain data from national vehicle registration databases. In the first step, an
inquiring Member State compares its data set against one or several Member States' Prüm databases. In
case of a sufficient match between two sets of data, “a hit” is reported back. The query and the reply
includes only reference data that does not contain any data from which the data subject can be directly
identified (e.g. no name, date of birth, etc). In case of DNA and dactyloscopic data, if a sufficient match
between two data sets in confirmed by a forensic expert, a request to receive personal and case related
data should be sent to the Member State where the hit occurred. This subsequent exchange of personal
data is called step 2 and it takes place under national law. In case of vehicle registration data, the additional
data is provided immediately upon “a hit”.
Prüm automated exchange of data has allowed to solve many serious crimes in Europe. For example,
Prüm framework can be used in a case when comparing a partial fingerprint example (so-called latent print)
found on a crime scene against the national criminal fingerprint database brings no results, i.e. the suspect
remains unidentified. Checking the same latent fingerprint data also against other Member State’s criminal
fingerprint databases could show that the same person had been convicted for a criminal offence in another
Member State. As a result, after the exchange of additional data between the two Member States, the
suspect can be identified and the criminal investigation can lead to the prosecution and conviction of a
c r i m i n a l .
The objective of this consultation is to gather stakeholders’ feedback on the Prüm framework for automated
data exchange. The consultation looks at the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and
European added value of the Prüm framework. It also aims to collect information on the shortcomings of
the existing Prüm framework and on the possible ways to address these.
1
[1] DNA profile means a letter or number code which represents a set of identification characteristics of the
non-coding part of an analysed human DNA sample, i.e. the particular molecular structure at the various
DNA locations (loci)
[2] Dactyloscopic data mean fingerprint images, images of fingerprint latents, palm prints, palm print latents
and templates of such images (coded minutiae), when they are stored and dealt with in an automated
database
[3] Query is launched based on chassis number or licence plate number. Data set returned is described in
Chapter 3 of the Annex of Council Decision 2008/616/JHA.
About you
* Language of my contribution
Bulgarian
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
French
German
Greek
Hungarian
Irish
Italian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Maltese
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swedish
* I am giving my contribution as
2
Academic/research institution
Business association
Company/business organisation
Consumer organisation
EU citizen
Environmental organisation
Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Public authority
Trade union
Other
* First name
* Surname
* Email (this won't be published)
* Scope
International
Local
National
Regional
* Organisation name
255 character(s) maximum
* Organisation size
Micro (1 to 9 employees)
Small (10 to 49 employees)
Medium (50 to 249 employees)
3
Large (250 or more)
Transparency register number
255 character(s) maximum
Check if your organisation is on the transparency register. It's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to
influence EU decision-making.
* Country of origin
Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.
Afghanistan Djibouti Libya Saint Martin
Åland Islands Dominica Liechtenstein Saint Pierre
and Miquelon
Albania Dominican Lithuania Saint Vincent
Republic and the
Grenadines
Algeria Ecuador Luxembourg Samoa
American Egypt Macau San Marino
Samoa
Andorra El Salvador Madagascar São Tomé and
Príncipe
Angola Equatorial Malawi Saudi Arabia
Guinea
Anguilla Eritrea Malaysia Senegal
Antarctica Estonia Maldives Serbia
Antigua and Eswatini Mali Seychelles
Barbuda
Argentina Ethiopia Malta Sierra Leone
Armenia Falkland Islands Marshall Singapore
Islands
Aruba Faroe Islands Martinique Sint Maarten
Australia Fiji Mauritania Slovakia
Austria Finland Mauritius Slovenia
Azerbaijan France Mayotte Solomon
Islands
Bahamas French Guiana Mexico Somalia
Bahrain Micronesia South Africa
4
French
Polynesia
Bangladesh French Moldova South Georgia
Southern and and the South
Antarctic Lands Sandwich
Islands
Barbados Gabon Monaco South Korea
Belarus Georgia Mongolia South Sudan
Belgium Germany Montenegro Spain
Belize Ghana Montserrat Sri Lanka
Benin Gibraltar Morocco Sudan
Bermuda Greece Mozambique Suriname
Bhutan Greenland Myanmar Svalbard and
/Burma Jan Mayen
Bolivia Grenada Namibia Sweden
Bonaire Saint Guadeloupe Nauru Switzerland
Eustatius and
Saba
Bosnia and Guam Nepal Syria
Herzegovina
Botswana Guatemala Netherlands Taiwan
Bouvet Island Guernsey New Caledonia Tajikistan
Brazil Guinea New Zealand Tanzania
British Indian Guinea-Bissau Nicaragua Thailand
Ocean Territory
British Virgin Guyana Niger The Gambia
Islands
Brunei Haiti Nigeria Timor-Leste
Bulgaria Heard Island Niue Togo
and McDonald
Islands
Burkina Faso Honduras Norfolk Island Tokelau
Burundi Hong Kong Northern Tonga
Mariana Islands
Cambodia Hungary North Korea
5
Trinidad and
Tobago
Cameroon Iceland North Tunisia
Macedonia
Canada India Norway Turkey
Cape Verde Indonesia Oman Turkmenistan
Cayman Islands Iran Pakistan Turks and
Caicos Islands
Central African Iraq Palau Tuvalu
Republic
Chad Ireland Palestine Uganda
Chile Isle of Man Panama Ukraine
China Israel Papua New United Arab
Guinea Emirates
Christmas Italy Paraguay United
Island Kingdom
Clipperton Jamaica Peru United States
Cocos (Keeling) Japan Philippines United States
Islands Minor Outlying
Islands
Colombia Jersey Pitcairn Islands Uruguay
Comoros Jordan Poland US Virgin
Islands
Congo Kazakhstan Portugal Uzbekistan
Cook Islands Kenya Puerto Rico Vanuatu
Costa Rica Kiribati Qatar Vatican City
Côte d’Ivoire Kosovo Réunion Venezuela
Croatia Kuwait Romania Vietnam
Cuba Kyrgyzstan Russia Wallis and
Futuna
Curaçao Laos Rwanda Western
Sahara
Cyprus Latvia Saint Yemen
Barthélemy
Czechia Lebanon Zambia
6
Saint Helena
Ascension and
Tristan da
Cunha
Democratic Lesotho Saint Kitts and Zimbabwe
Republic of the Nevis
Congo
Denmark Liberia Saint Lucia
* Publication privacy settings
The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like
your details to be made public or to remain anonymous.
Anonymous
Only your contribution, country of origin and the respondent type profile that
you selected will be published. All other personal details (name, organisation
name and size, transparency register number) will not be published.
Public
Your personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency
register number, country of origin) will be published with your contribution.
I agree with the personal data protection provisions
The existing Prüm framework for the automated exchange of DNA,
dactyloscopic and vehicle registration data
1. In your view, how relevant is cooperation and the exchange of information
between Member States’ law enforcement authorities for the prevention and
investigation of criminal offences?
Not at all
To a small extent
To some extent
To a large extent
Very relevant
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
7
2. How relevant it is to be able to search and compare DNA, fingerprint and vehicle
registration data (the Prüm framework) in other Member States’ databases for the
prevention and investigation of criminal and terrorist offences?
Not To a small To some To a large Very I do not
at all extent extent extent relevant know
DNA
Dactyloscopic
data
Vehicle
registration data
Please explain in more detail.
3. To what extent does the Prüm framework correspond to the needs/interests of
different stakeholders?
I do
Not To a small To some To a large
Completely not
at all extent extent extent
know
Victims of crime
Criminal investigators
Data protection
authorities
Forensic specialists
Database custodians
Legal practitioners
Human rights
organisations
Other (please
describe below)
Please explain in more detail. If you replied “other”, please describe it here.
4. Please provide any examples or (statistical) data how, if any, Prüm automated
data exchange has helped to fight crime and terrorism.
8
5. The purpose of the Prüm automated exchange of data is to step up cross-border
cooperation, particularly the exchange of information between authorities
responsible for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences. In your view,
has the Prüm framework improved the exchange of data between Member States?
No
To some extent
Yes
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
5.1 What factors have prevented the effective implementation of the automated
data exchange under the Prüm framework? Multiple replies are possible.
Technical reasons, e.g. compatibility with the requirements set in the Prüm
Decisions;
Legal aspects, e.g. need to adapt national legislation;
Financial costs, e.g. setting up respective national databases, establishing
bilateral connections with other Member States;
Operational reasons, e.g. lack of efficient and effective work processes;
Gaps or lack of clarity in the Prüm Decisions;
Other (please describe below);
I do not know
Please explain in more detail. If you replied “other”, please describe it here.
5.2 How has the Prüm framework contributed to improving the exchange of data
between Member States?
I do I
I tend I neither I I do
not tend
to disagree fully not
agree to
disagree nor agree agree know
at all agree
Harmonised rules allow more efficient
data comparison between the police.
9
Decreased administrative burden for
the police, as a part of the data
exchange process is automated
Faster access of the police to the
relevant information.
Other (please describe below)
I do not know
Please explain in more detail. If you replied “other”, please describe it here.
6. In your view, has the automated exchange of DNA, dactyloscopic and vehicle
registration data resulted in any negative consequences?
No
To some extent
Yes
I do not know
6.1 What are the main negative consequences of the Prüm framework?
I do I
I tend I neither I I do
not tend
to disagree fully not
agree to
disagree nor agree agree know
at all agree
Undermining data security in national
systems and when transferring data
between national authorities
Limiting of the right of data protection
and privacy for the individual
concerned (data subject)
Limiting of other fundamental rights for
the individual concerned (data subject)
Other (please describe below)
I do not know
Please explain in more detail. If you replied “other”, please describe it here.
10
7. In your view, to what extent has the Prüm framework provided added value
compared to what Member States could achieve in the field of law enforcement
information exchange in the absence of the Prüm framework?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
8. Over the time, several EU and international initiatives aim at facilitating the
exchange of information between law enforcement authorities, such as Europol
information systems, Interpol information systems, Schengen Information System,
Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA. To what extent do you agree/disagree
that the Prüm framework complements other EU and international action in the
area of law enforcement information exchange?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
9. Are you aware of any overlaps with other law enforcement information exchange
tools/instruments at EU or international level?
No
Yes
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
11
10. Is there anything else you would like to comment on with relation to the current
EU policy on automated cross-border exchange of data between law enforcement
authorities?
11. In your view, to what extent has the automated data exchange under the Prüm
framework brought any efficiency gains in the law enforcement information
exchange?
Not at To a small To some To a large I do not
all extent extent extent know
Speed of exchanges
Administrative burden
Costs
Staff
Other (please describe
below)
Please explain in more detail. If you replied “other”, please describe it here.
12. Please provide any examples or (statistical) data how, if any, Prüm automated
data exchange improved the efficiency of law enforcement information exchange
(for example the change in waiting time for the responses, change in the number of
queries per official that the law enforcement authorities are capable of serving,
change in the costs of respective information systems/ICT developments, etc).
13. In your view, have the costs (administrative, budgetary, in terms of personnel,
etc.) related to the implementation of the Prüm framework been proportionate to its
contribution in terms of the improvements in law enforcement information
exchange?
I do
Not To a small To some To a large
Completely not
at all extent extent extent
know
12
DNA
Dactyloscopic
data
Vehicle
registration data
14. Please explain in more detail why you deem the costs related to the
implementation of the Prüm framework to be proportionate/disproportionate in
relation to the efficiency gains.
Strengthening the automated data exchange under the Prüm framework
The following questions target the shortcomings identified by the Commission and the possibilities if and
how to address these shortcomings.
15. The existing Prüm framework allows the exchange of DNA, fingerprint and
vehicle registration data. There are other data in Member States’ databases that
are often the subject of cross-border information requests in criminal investigations.
These are exchanged by sending manual queries to other law enforcement
authorities that require human resources and that can take time. To what extent do
you agree/disagree that this is a shortcoming in the law enforcement information
exchange?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
15.1 What do you consider to be the most appropriate means to address this
shortcoming?
No changes are needed.
13
Member States should address it in bilateral/multilateral agreements with
other Member States
EU should provide support and guidance to facilitate cooperation between
Member States’ law enforcement authorities.
EU legislation should be established to standardise and automate the
exchange of additional data categories.
Other (please describe below).
I do not know.
Please explain in more detail why (not). If you replied “other”, please describe it
here.
15.2 What data could be exchanged under the same principles as provided by the
Prüm framework?
No Yes I do not know
Limited extract of police records
Driving Licences
Photos of suspects and convicted criminals
Ballistics
Other (please describe below)
Please explain in more detail why (not). If you replied “other”, please describe it
here.
16. In your view, can the inclusion of any data listed above in the Prüm framework
entail risks (data security, data protection, other rights and freedoms)? Please
describe any safeguards (procedural, technical, data protection, etc), if any, that
you would consider necessary for this change in the Prüm framework.
17. In case of DNA and dactyloscopic queries, the exchange of personal data after
a hit has been confirmed (step 2) is not governed by the Prüm Decisions, but by
national law. Differences in administrative, legal, judicial systems lead to
14
sometimes long waiting times and diverse practices in defining the data to be
handed over. To what extent do you agree/disagree that this is a shortcoming of
the existing Prüm framework?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
17.1 What do you consider the most appropriate means to address this
shortcoming?
No changes are needed.
Member States should address it individually in their national legislation
/procedures
EU should provide support and guidance to facilitate cooperation between
Member States’ law enforcement authorities.
EU legislation should be established to streamline the hit follow-up exchange
of personal and case related data.
Other (please describe below)
I do not know
Please explain in more detail why (not). If you replied “other”, please describe it
here.
17.2 To what extent should the process be regulated at EU level?
I do
No Yes not
know
Harmonising the deadlines to reply to a request
Determine the law enforcement information exchange channel through which the
request and the reply should be submitted
15
Agree on a limited data set to be first provided in “fast track”
Establish a designated “Prüm” IT application for submitting and receiving the
requests
Other (please describe below)
I do not know
Please explain in more detail why (not). If you replied “other”, please describe it
here.
18. In your view, can the inclusion of any data listed above in the Prüm framework
entail risks (data security, data protection, other rights and freedoms)? Please
describe any safeguards (procedural, technical, data protection, etc), if any, that
you would consider necessary for this change in the Prüm framework.
19. The existing Prüm framework is a decentralised network of bilateral
connections between the national databases of Member States without any EU
level central components. Not all Member States have established connections
with all other Member States for various reasons. This could result in some queries
not being checked against the data in some countries and may increase the
possibility that some criminals are not identified, and some cross-border links
between crimes are not detected. To what extent do you agree/disagree that this is
a shortcoming of the existing Prüm framework?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
19.1 Which of the following options would seem the most appropriate technical
solution for Prüm?
16
Network of bilateral connections between Member States’ databases
(maintaining the current solution)
Establishing an EU central router for transferring messages between
Member States (so-called hub and spoke model) with limited functions at
central level such as technical/operational system monitoring, collection of
statistics.
Establishing an EU automated biometric identification system (ABIS) that
would allow matching biometric templates by a centrally managed technical
solution.
Other (please describe below)
I do not know
Please explain in more detail why (not). If you replied “other”, please describe it
here.
20. In your view, can the inclusion of any data listed above in the Prüm framework
entail risks (data security, data protection, other rights and freedoms)? Please
describe any safeguards (procedural, technical, data protection, etc), if any, that
you would consider necessary for this change in the Prüm framework.
21. Europol is the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation. Europol is not
part of the Prüm framework, however Europol databases contain relevant data from
3rd countries about serious criminals and terrorists. This data is currently not
compared against Member States criminal databases in a structured manner. To
what extent do you agree/disagree that this is a shortcoming of the existing Prüm
framework?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
17
22. Which of the following options would seem the most appropriate participation of
Europol in the Prüm framework?
No changes are needed.
Europol could improve the availability of relevant data through existing
Europol information systems.
EU legislation should be established to allow Europol to exchange data in
the Prüm framework.
Other (please describe below)
I do not know
Please explain in more detail why (not). If you replied “other”, please describe it
here.
23. In your view, can the inclusion of any data listed above in the Prüm framework
entail risks (data security, data protection, other rights and freedoms)? Please
describe any safeguards (procedural, technical, data protection, etc), if any, that
you would consider necessary for this change in the Prüm framework.
24. In several Member States Prüm biometric data exchanges cannot be used for
searching missing people and unidentified human remains as this is not a criminal
investigation according to national legislation. To what extent do you agree
/disagree that this is a shortcoming?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
18
The experts have proposed a number of possible changes in the existing vehicle registration data queries.
25. In order to further improve the criminal investigations, especially regarding
stolen vehicles, it might be useful to have additional data provided in the reply to a
query on vehicle registration data, such as mileage or vehicle colour. To what
extent you agree/disagree that this new data should be added in the reply to a
query on vehicle registration data?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
26. In criminal investigations it might be useful to have knowledge of all vehicles
registered in the name of a certain natural person or legal entity. To what extent
you agree/disagree that this query should be allowed under Prüm framework as a
follow-up request to the existing query on vehicle registration data?
I do not agree at all
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
27. In criminal investigation, it might be useful to know if any other Member State
has previously made queries regarding the same vehicle. To what extent you agree
/disagree that this information could be flagged in the reply to a query concerning
vehicle registration data?
I do not agree at all
19
I tend to disagree
I neither disagree nor agree
I tend to agree
I fully agree
I do not know
Please explain in more detail.
28. In your view, can any of these options listed above regarding the improvements
in vehicle registration data queries entail risks (data security, data protection, other
rights and freedoms)? Please describe any safeguards (procedural, technical, data
protection, etc), if any, that you would consider necessary for this change in the
Prüm framework.
29. Are there any other shortcomings in the current Prüm framework that should
be addressed? If yes, how would you suggest addressing these?
30. In your view, are there any aspects of the existing Prüm automated exchange
of data that should not be changed?
31. Do you have any other comments that you wish to make on the Prüm
automated exchange of data?
If you wish, you may upload a concise document, such as position paper. This is an
optional complement to your responses to this questionnaire and will serve as
additional background reading to better understand your position. If you prefer, you
may email this to
[email protected].
The maximum file size is 1 MB
Only files of the type pdf,txt,doc,docx,odt,rtf are allowed
20
Your experience with the Prüm framework
32. How would you rate your knowledge and understanding of EU policies in the
area of cross-border exchange of data between law enforcement authorities?
None
Very limited
Limited
Good
Very good
I do not know
33. How would you rate your knowledge and understanding of the legal framework
and the functioning of the Prüm automated exchange of DNA, dactyloscopic and
vehicle registration data?
None
Very limited
Limited
Good
Very good
I do not know
34. Have you used Prüm automated data exchange in your work since its
establishment in 2008?
Regularly
In very rare occasions Frequently
(on a
Never (one to four times per (on a weekly
monthly
year) basis)
basis)
As a criminal investigator
As a forensic expert
As an officer responsible for the
international police cooperation
As a judicial authority
21
22
Ref. Ares(2020)4214748 - 11/08/2020
COMBINED EVALUATION ROADMAP/INCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This combined evaluation roadmap/Inception Impact Assessment aims to inform citizens and stakeholders about the
Commission's work in order to allow them to provide feedback on the intended initiative and to participate effectively
in future consultation activities. Citizens and stakeholders are, in particular, invited to provide views on the
Commission's understanding of the current situation, problem and possible solutions and to make available any
relevant information that they may have, including on possible impacts of the different options.
TITLE OF THE INITIATIVE Strengthening the automated data exchange under the Prüm framework
LEAD DG – RESPONSIBLE UNIT DG HOME, Unit D.1 Police Cooperation and Information Exchange
– PLAN/2020/6629
LIKELY TYPE OF INITIATIVE Interinstitutional legislative file
INDICATIVE PLANNING Q2 2021
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Ajl0005
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/police-
cooperation/information-exchange/eixm_en
This combined roadmap/Inception Impact Assessment is provided for information purposes only. It does not
prejudge the final decision of the Commission on whether this initiative will be pursued or on its final
content. All elements of the initiative described by this document, including its timing, are subject to change.
A. Context, Evaluation, Problem definition and Subsidiarity Check
Context
Serious and organised crime in Europe acts across borders. In 2017, more than 5000 serious and
organised crime groups were under investigation in Europe, with 7 out of 10 organised criminal groups
active in more than 3 countries and with altogether more than 180 nationalities involved (European
serious and organised crime threat assessment SOCTA, 2017). Fighting national and cross-border crime
requires daily operational cooperation and information exchange between Member States’ law
enforcement authorities.
At EU level, the Prüm Decisions are one of the core instruments for supporting cooperation between law
enforcement authorities to fight cross-border crime: 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
and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on
the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime.
The Prüm Decisions cover two independent parts of cross-border cooperation instruments: 1) Automated
exchange of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), dactyloscopic and vehicle registration data (VRD), and 2)
cross-border operational police cooperation, including the supply of data in connection with major events
with cross-border dimension, in order to prevent terrorist offences, joint patrols, and assistance in
connection with mass gathering, disasters and serious accidents.
The Prüm framework for automated data exchange allows a Member State to query DNA, dactyloscopic
and vehicle registration data in one or several other Member States’ national databases. The system
provides a reply including no personal data, but only reference data, if any matching data sets (“hits”)
were found. After a “hit” is confirmed, i.e. matching data sets are verified by a forensic expert, a request to
receive personal and case related data from the Member State concerned should be sent. In case of
vehicle registration data, the additional data is provided immediately with “a hit”.
In 2018, the Council, at the occasion of 10 years after the adoption of the Prüm Decisions, underlined the
importance of the automated searching and comparison of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and vehicle
registration data for tackling terrorism and cross-border crime. The Council also invited the Commission to
consider revising the Decisions with a view to broadening their scope and, to that end, to updating the
necessary technical and legal requirements.
Evaluation
The initiative will start by evaluating the functioning of the Prüm framework in EU Member States including
whether it is fit for purpose and fulfils its objective. It will also aim at identifying possible key problems and
obstacles that hamper the effective use of the Prüm framework.
The Evaluation will assess the following criteria:
- Relevance: whether the tools of the Prüm framework correspond to current needs,
- Effectiveness: whether the original objectives have been achieved,
- Efficiency: the functioning of the Prüm framework from a simplification and burden reduction
perspective,
- Coherence: how the Prüm framework works together with other legislation in the field of cross-
border co-operation, and
- EU added value of the Prüm framework.
The implementation of the Prüm Decisions has been discussed in various fora over the past years (the
Commission report of 2012 on the implementation of the Prüm Decisions, regular discussions in the
1
Council Working Party DAPIX / IXIM , several implementation projects at EU level, discussions in the High
Level Expert Group on Information Systems and Interoperability, the reports of five focus groups
composed of Member States experts, the Commission study on the feasibility of improving information
exchange under the Prüm framework). This has allowed to establish a solid understanding of the
functioning of the existing Prüm framework.
The evaluation will analyse the implementation of the automated data exchange under the Prüm
2
Decisions in all EU Member States and, to the extent possible, by Schengen Associated countries . The
evaluation will cover the period from 2008 when the Prüm Decisions were adopted.
Problem the initiative aims to tackle
Possible obstacles to exchanging data under the Prüm framework may affect the efficiency of law
enforcement authorities’ investigations of criminal and terrorist offences, and the establishment of possible
cross-border links between the offences. Although the Prüm framework is considered a successful EU
tool for law enforcement cooperation that has helped to solve many crimes in Europe, several issues
seem to hamper timely and smooth exchange of information. Moreover, since the adoption of the Prüm
Decisions, EU data protection rules have evolved and been revamped, notably through the Law
Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680).
1. Inefficient follow-up to hits: Automated searches in Member States’ DNA and dactyloscopic
databases are based on reference data only. This reference data does not contain any data from
which the data subject can be directly identified. Personal and other case related data is exchanged
only when a hit has been confirmed by a forensic expert. This exchange of “hit follow-up data” is not
governed by the Prüm Decisions, but by national law, including the legal assistance rules, of the
requested Member States. Due to differences in national administrative, law enforcement and judicial
systems’ rules and procedures, the exchange of hit follow-up data is very fragmented: Member States
use different law enforcement cooperation channels, different procedures, different data sets and
different time limits when requesting and submitting follow-up data. As was described in the
Implementation report of 2012, the processes are so cumbersome and time-consuming that in some
cases, they lead to a waiting time for responses with relevant information of weeks or even months. In
worst cases, the hit follow-up requests for information are not sent at all because of its complicated
procedures or because the investigator knows that the response would not arrive on time (e.g. the
suspect needs to be released from custody). At the same time, a mere hit without additional related
personal and case related data has hardly any meaning for investigators.
2. Difficulties in cross-border exchange of other data categories: One of the key success factors for
the existing Prüm framework is the possibility to search and compare data in an automated way in
other Member States’ databases. However, this possibility currently covers only a few categories of
data: DNA, dactyloscopic and vehicle registration data. There are some other categories of data in
Member States’ databases that are often the subject of cross-border information requests for the
purpose of criminal investigations, but that are exchanged in an inefficient way. This concerns
especially the exchange of information on police records that is queried through traditional law
enforcement cooperation channels (mainly via secure systems provided by Europol or Interpol, liaison
officers) in a labour-intensive manual “query -> manual search in databases –> reply” manner. Another
example is data on driving licences that can be exchanged between authorities responsible for issuing
driving licences (Directive 2006/126/EC), but cannot be queried cross-border in criminal investigations
to identify the driver or the validity of the driving licence. Additionally, there are other types of data that
are collected in the course of criminal investigations, but cannot be compared and shared due to a lack
of technical solutions. This data concerns especially photos on suspects and convicted criminals in
1
Council Working Party on Information Exchange and Data Protection (DAPIX), as from 01 January 2020 Working Party
on JHA Information Exchange (IXIM).
2
The agreements between the EU and Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein on the implementation of certain
provisions of the Prüm Decisions are not yet in force.
2
police databases, and ballistics data that could be used in establishing the link between a firearm and
bullets shot from that firearm.
3. Complex technical architecture: The existing Prüm framework is a decentralised network of bilateral
connections between the national databases of Member States without any EU level central
components. Therefore, each Member State should establish 27 connections per each data category.
Although the implementation of the Prüm Decisions has significantly improved since their adoption in
2008, only 61% of DNA, 57% of dactyloscopic, 79% of vehicle registration data of all possible
connections between Member States have been established. Some Member States have explained
that setting up all the connections and maintaining them is technically complex and requires
considerable financial and human resources. For these reasons, they have decided to focus on
establishing connections only with prioritised Member States. This, however, could result in some
queries not being checked against the data in some countries and may increase the possibility that
some criminals are not identified, and some cross-border links between crimes are not detected.
4. Lack of systematic exchange of data between Member States and Europol: Europol is the EU
information hub for cross-border serious and organised crime related information. The links between
the information processed by Europol and the information contained in the EU centralised information
systems for security, border and migration management have been considerably strengthened over
the past years. However, a significant share of information exchange at EU level continues to take
place via decentralised networks, such as the Prüm framework. The consultations with end-users have
rd
especially indicated the relevance of comparing Europol data received from 3 countries in a
structured and efficient manner against national criminal databases.
5. Inefficiencies in the current automated data exchange: Prüm Implementing Decision
(2008/616/JHA) contains detailed inclusion and matching rules, technical specifications of queries,
security measures, communication etc that have not been changed since their adoption. Some of
these are outdated as forensic science and information technology have significantly developed since
2008. Member States have also suggested some changes in functionalities or data fields to improve
the exchange of existing data categories (e.g. adding optionally mileage data in the reply of a query
concerning vehicle registration data). Additionally, in some Member States the Prüm framework (DNA
and dactyloscopic data) cannot be used for searching missing people and unidentified human remains
(UHR), whereas in other Member States it is possible due to differences in national legislation. This
decreases the chances of finding missing people or identifying UHR.
6. Outdated data protection framework: The Prüm Decisions contain rules on data protection that
predates the recent EU data protection reform. There is a clear need to update the data protection
requirements in the light of the new European data protection regime and especially the Law
Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680) and bring them in line with this legal framework, as
also obliged by Article 62(6) of the Law Enforcement Directive.
Basis for EU intervention (legal basis and subsidiarity check)
Cross-border crime can only be tackled by effective cross-border police cooperation, especially by
exchanging information. Common EU level rules, standards and requirements facilitate these exchanges,
provide compatibility between different national systems, and help to ensure high-level security and data
protection standards. Additionally, as the experience with the current Prüm framework shows, common
standards allow for certain level of automation in information exchange workflows that release law
enforcement officers from certain labour-intensive manual activities. This proposal aims to improve the
functioning of the existing Prüm framework in line with data protection standards. In the absence of EU
action, the instrument would likely continue to function for some time, but would at some point in time
become obsolete in the light of technical, forensic, data protection, and other developments.
The legal basis for the instrument is point (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(1) and point (a) of
Article 87(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
B. Objectives and Policy options
Law enforcement work is inherently an information-based activity. In order to successfully prevent and
investigate serious crimes, investigators need to have fast, streamlined and systematic access to all the
information they need and which they are legally entitled to obtain in order to perform their tasks. This
initiative aims to provide law enforcement authorities with an efficient and effective information exchange
framework allowing access to relevant information to which they are legally entitled to in a timely and
efficient manner, while ensuring a high level of protection of fundamental rights and personal data.
The specific objectives and initial set of options that may address them are:
1. Speed up and streamline the hit-follow-up exchange process
Option 1. Member States continue to exchange personal and case related data based on national law,
including legal assistance rules. (Baseline scenario)
Option 2. Adopting minimum standards for the data set to be provided by the requested Member State, a
3
timeframe and a channel for data transfer once the requesting Member State has confirmed a
hit. (Legislative intervention)
Option 3. Implementing a system based solution of querying and returning limited core personal data in a
semi-automated manner. Different technical solutions and levels of harmonisation of the
processes are possible. (Legislative intervention)
2. Enable automated exchange of additional data categories that are available in Member States’
criminal or other databases for the purpose of criminal investigations
Option 1. Continue exchanging other categories of data than DNA, dactyloscopic and vehicle registration
data via traditional police information exchange (query – reply based on manual search of data).
(Baseline scenario)
Option 2. Add one or several additional categories of data available in Member States’ criminal databases
for automated search and comparison under the Prüm framework (legislative intervention):
a. A limited data set from police records (e.g. pseudonymised name, date of birth, place of
birth, gender) to identify a Member State possibly holding more information on a person
under investigation;
b. Driving licences;
c. Facial images contained in Member States’ criminal investigations databases;
d. Ballistics.
3. Facilitate the implementation, use and maintenance of the information system
Option 1. Maintain the existing network of bilateral connections between Member States. (Baseline
scenario)
Option 2. Maintain the decentralised architecture of the Prüm network, but implement a central router.
This would facilitate the implementation of the system by Member States by allowing Member
States to connect to the router only (instead of having bilateral connections with each Member
State) and enabling the provision of some services at EU level (statistics, operational technical
monitoring of the system, etc.). (Legislative intervention)
Option 3. Develop central components for searching and comparison of data (e.g. Automated Biometrics
Identification Systems and others) that would allow to avoid developing and maintaining all the
different necessary hard- and software by each Member State separately. (Legislative
intervention)
rd
4. Enable search and comparison of data received by Europol from 3 countries
rd
Option 1. Continue making data received by Europol from 3 countries available only in Europol
information systems. (Baseline scenario)
Option 2. Europol would participate in the Prüm data exchange mechanism for the purpose of cross-
rd
checking data received from 3 countries and establishing links between the information
rd
received from 3 countries and Member States’ databases with strong safeguards to ensure
rd
that there will be no onward transmission of information to 3 countries. (Legislative
Intervention)
Option 3. Europol, as EU law enforcement information hub, would in addition to option 2 store the
information on “hits” falling under Europol’s mandate and use it for tasks under its mandate to
support the Member States in tackling cross-border serious crime and terrorism. (Legislative
intervention)
5. Improve the automated exchange of existing data categories
Option 1. Continue the automated exchange of data based on the existing technical, forensic,
administrative standards and legal requirements. (Baseline scenario)
Option 2. Change the legal instrument to replace the Prüm Implementing Decision (2008/616/JHA) in
order to allow for more flexible updates of technical, forensic and administrative standards.
(Legislative intervention)
Option 3. Implement a more structural changes also in the existing automated exchange, such as
extending the scope of the Prüm framework to explicitly allow using DNA and dactyloscopic
queries for searching missing persons and unidentified human remains. New functionalities or
data fields will also be considered (e g adding optional data on mileage and colour in the reply
on vehicle registration data or improving the candidate lists of biometric searches) with a view to
improve the efficiency of the Prüm framework. (Legislative intervention)
6. Provide high level of data protection
Option 1. Irrespective of whether any other changes described above will be implemented or not, a
3
minimum update of existing data protection provisions to fully align the Prüm Decisions with the
Law Enforcement Directive is legally obliged. (Legislative intervention)
Option 2. Revise the data protection requirements and safeguards of the Prüm framework because of
3
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Way forward on aligning the
former third pillar acquis with data protection rules, 24 June 2020, COM(2020) 262.
4
wider changes in the Prüm framework (in light of the policy options described above).
(Legislative Intervention)
The different options are preliminary and non-exhaustive, and will be assessed in the impact assessment.
The possible outcome of such analysis might consist in a combination of the above options.
C. Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts
Likely economic impacts
The direct economic impacts are relatively limited and vary according to the option chosen. The indirect
economic impacts can include:
The possible changes in the Prüm framework require research and development activities to ensure the
best possible solutions that cover law enforcement needs and at the same time comply with high
standards for protecting fundamental rights and personal data. Additionally, this supports the ICT sector,
including SMEs, to deliver the needed technical solutions.
Member States and the European Union will need to foresee the finances for implementing the new
provisions and technical solutions.
The prevention of crimes and convicting the criminals has positive impact on the economy given the cost
of crime for society.
Likely social impacts
Improved information exchange between European law enforcement authorities leads to a greater number
of successful investigations and convicted criminals, and will consequently lead to a safer society.
Likely environmental impacts
There are no direct environmental impacts. As an indirect environmental impact, one can highlight that the
Prüm framework is also used to investigate environmental crimes.
Likely impacts on fundamental rights
The existing Prüm framework is used for investigating criminal offences by searching and comparing
defined categories of data in Member States’ crime databases. The initiative may lead to a possible
broadening of the categories of data (already collected) subject to exchange and/or modification of the
architecture and conditions of the exchange. This may lead to changes in the impact on fundamental
rights, in particular on protection of personal data compared to existing conditions and safeguards. For
these reasons, a thorough Impact Assessment will be carried out assessing the different policy options,
and addressing in particular the impact on fundamental rights and data protection as a very important
horizontal aspect. Additionally, one of the aims of this initiative is to update and strengthen the Prüm
framework in the light of the new European data protection regime, especially the Law Enforcement
Directive. Improving the efficiency of the Prüm framework, and improving the security of the system by
modernising the technical requirements, will lead to improved possibilities for the identification of criminals
and more efficient criminal investigations that will contribute to the security of the society.
Likely impacts on simplification and/or administrative burden
The already identified problems described in section A subsection “Problem the initiative aims to tackle”
show the inefficiencies of the existing Prüm framework. The Prüm framework is a specific system with a
very targeted direct user-base, but it affects the work of a much wider group of criminal investigators. The
majority of specific objectives of the revision of the existing system aim to address these inefficiencies by
offering more harmonised, simpler, efficient processes and technical solutions. Concrete impacts depend
on the respective policy options, but could lead to the release of budgetary and human resources from
labour- and time consuming routines.
D. Evidence base, Data collection and Better Regulation Instruments
Impact assessment
A back-to-back evaluation and impact assessment will be carried out. An impact assessment will
accompany any legislative proposal revising the Prüm Framework, with the aim to clarify the measures to
be proposed and estimate their possible impact. The impact assessment will take into account the new
economic context post-Covid-19 crisis.
Evidence base and data collection
In the past years, several processes have contributed to establishing a sound knowledge about the
benefits and shortcomings of the Prüm framework.
- Implementation Report of the Prüm Decisions, European Commission, 2012
- Several projects aiming to improve the implementations of the Prüm Decisions;
5
- Regular discussions on law enforcement information exchange and specifically on the Prüm
Decisions, in the Council Working Party DAPIX;
- High Level Expert Group on Information Systems and Interoperability;
- Expert discussions in the context of 5 focus groups addressing topical improvement opportunities
of the Prüm Decisions;
- Study on the feasibility of improving the exchange of information under the Prüm Decisions,
including 3 workshops with the end-users from Member States and other stakeholders;
- Various studies, e.g. Cross-Border Exchange and Comparison of Forensic DNA Data in the
Context of the Prüm Decision
In the course of the evaluation and impact assessment, the stakeholders will be consulted to address any
information gaps. Additionally, a public consultation is foreseen to gather additional stakeholders’ views.
Consultation strategy
As described under sub-chapter “evidence base and data collection”, over the past years several
consultations (questionnaires, workshops, interviews) with different stakeholders have already taken
place. Nevertheless, in the context of this evaluation and impact assessment, targeted consultations are
envisaged to address any gaps in the evidence base. These targeted consultations will involve the
following stakeholders: law enforcement authorities and national forensic institutions using the Prüm
framework, EU agencies (Europol and Fundamental Rights Agency), EU bodies (e. g. European
Parliament, notably its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, General Secretariat of the
Council), and the data protection supervisory authorities. Additionally, a public consultation is foreseen.
Will an Implementation plan be established?
Depending on the complexity of the final proposal an implementation plan may be established.
6
Marget Lundava
Rahapesu Andmebüroo Meie 19.01.2021 nr 1.1-11/9228-2
[email protected]
Euroopa Komisjoni avalik
konsultatsioon - Prümi otsused
Austatud proua Lundava
Palume esitada Rahapesu Andmebüroo arvamuse ja seisukohad Euroopa Komisjoni avaliku
konsultatsiooni – Prümi otsused, kohta.
Lugupidamisega
(allkirjastatud digitaalselt)
Märten Ross
finantspoliitika ja välissuhete asekantsler
Lisad:
1) Avalik konsultatsioon_kusimustik.pdf;
2) Euroopa Komisjoni avalik konsultatsioon-…pdf;
3) Lisa 1. Eesti vastus.pdf; 4) SK Prumi esialgne mojuhinnang.pdf.
Sören Meius 6113630
[email protected]
Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / 611 3558 /
[email protected] / www.rahandusministeerium.ee
registrikood 70000272