|Author (Person)||Bunyan, Tony|
|Series Title||Statewatch Analysis|
|Series Details||Volume 20, Number 10|
|Publication Date||July 2018|
|Content Type||Journal Article|
This Analysis looks at key critiques of EU plans to create a pervasive EU state database covering existing and future Justice and Home Affairs databases.
What started out as creating “interconnectivity” between EU JHA databases was quickly rejected by the High Level Group of Experts in favour of “interoperability” which in turns has morphed at the hands of the Council and the Commission into the creation of a centralised EU state database covering all JHA databases.
In fast moving scenarios the institutions’ argument that only databases concerning non-EU citizens would be affected is undermined by the stated aim to cover all JHA databases (eg: EU PNR, treating all travellers as potential suspects, ECRIS – European Criminal Records Information System and the Prum system which includes registration of all vehicles) involving millions of EU citizens.
In an innocuous “policy debate” Council document (EU doc no: 6396-18, 26 February 2018) the Council Presidency has asked Member States: “Do you consider that any additional elements should be considered in the current legislative proposals on interoperability, such as should storing biometric data from national databases, Europol and Interpol in the shared Biometric Matching Service?” [emphasis added throughout]
This would cover millions of DNA samples and fingerprints held in the national- based Prum system which is already on the list of existing databases to be incorporated after the first stage.
Then on 17 April 2018 came a proposal from the Commission for Regulation for national ID cards to include mandatory biometrics (fingerprints and/or facial images) covering over 370 million EU citizens to be held on national databases.
Will this be another case of “function creep”?
|Subject Categories||Justice and Home Affairs|
|Keywords||European Criminal Records Information System [ECRIS]