There is black smoke between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU over the proposal to introduce a centralised information system on the criminal records of people from outside the EU (ECRIS-TCN), and the tricky question of including people with double nationality in the system.
While some sources said that the talks in September had been positive (see EUROPE 12096), they seem to be blocked again and are likely to contradict the Austrian Presidency of the Council of the EU's aim to reach agreement at the end of September (see EUROPE 12059).
In mid-September, the Council in effect submitted to the European Parliament a draft compromise, the infamous ‘option D’ (see EUROPE 12062), which aims to settle the remaining stumbling blocks, viz. the inclusion of fingerprints and the inclusion of EU passport holders who also hold the nationality of a non-EU country.
Option D keeps to an extent the idea of including in the ‘ECRIS-TCN' system people with double-nationality but foresees for digital fingerprints that the system would simply indicate whether they were available or not.
It is supplemented by ‘facility of access’ that would allow the competent authorities, in the case of ‘doubt’ about an EU passport holder to search the ECRIS-TCN system to see whether another member state holds information about the individual’s criminal record as a non-EU passport-holder.
At the Parliament, the last meeting of shadow rapporteurs last week had very clear results, according to a close source. The Parliament is sticking to its initial position that including double nationals in the system would lead to discrimination against these European citizens compared with those who only hold the nationality of an EU member state, explained the source on Thursday 4 October.
The Meijers Committee is very active on this subject (see EUROPE 11937), and set a letter on 1 October to the chair of the Parliament’s civil liberties committee, Claude Moraes, to call the European Parliament to its initial desire to not include double nationals.
In terms of the draft compromise itself, the committee says it is not satisfactory vis-à-vis this question and stresses that the number of individuals concerned by the situation is unknown, making it difficult to assess the justification of such discriminatory treatment.
At this stag, the trilogue scheduled for mid-October seems, however, to remain in place. (Original version in French by Marion Fontana)