EU Member States have started work on the so-called ‘Prüm II’ Regulation revising the 2008 EU Council decisions on the Prüm Convention, which provide for the automated exchange of DNA, dactyloscopic (fingerprint) and vehicle registration data between national law enforcement authorities and adding new categories of data, such as facial images of suspects and convicted criminals and police records.
The regulation, proposed on 8 December as part of a package of texts on strengthening police cooperation in the EU, will also strengthen the role of Europol: Member States would be able to automatically check biometric data from third countries held by Europol, while Europol would be able to check data from third countries in Member States’ databases (see EUROPE 12849/7).
A number of delegations have sent their initial comments in this regard to the French Presidency of the EU Council, compiled in a document dated 31 January. Germany, for example, asks for clarification on the new human resources planned for Europol to carry out these new missions in the framework of ‘Prüm II’, for which the Commission has foreseen an additional envelope of €7 million and 5 new posts.
The German government also wants more details on the automated exchange of data for the search for missing persons and unidentified human remains, which will also be a new component of this regulation. Berlin wants, as well, a definition of the term ‘automated’ or ‘personal data’ processed by Europol.
Belgium asked for clarification on the competent authorities to which the Regulation is addressed, as several Belgian services are competent.
Belgium also has doubts about this new objective dedicated to the search for missing persons and unidentified human remains. It explains that, according to the Legal Service of the Council of the EU, the exchange of information “would still be possible under Prüm II if there is a doubt that missing persons and unidentified human remains are, somehow, related to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences”. “We consider the concepts of ‘doubt’ and ‘absence of doubt’ as substantially vague”, the document says. “We think that it is impossible to have a situation where there is (preliminarily to further examinations) absolutely “no doubt” that unidentified human remains are not related to a criminal context”.
Belgium is also “thwarted” by the fact that “the option to use Prüm in other contexts than ‘prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences’ is not included”.
Link to the document: https://aeur.eu/f/72 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)