4 EURODAC
| (30256)
16934/08
COM(08) 825
+ ADD 1
+ ADDs 2 and 3
| Draft Regulation on the establishment of "EURODAC" for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Regulation establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection
Annex to the draft Regulation: detailed explanation of the proposal
Commission staff working documents: impact assessment and summary of assessment
|
| Legal base | Article 63(1)(a) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 3 December 2008
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 10 December 2008
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 23 December 2008
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in the European Committee on the same occasion that it debates the draft Regulation on determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection (30267) (16929/08)
|
Background
4.1 People from third countries and stateless people sometimes
seek asylum in more than one Member State. This can cause confusion
and waste. In 1997, Member States made an intergovernmental agreement
(the Dublin Convention) on the criteria and mechanisms for deciding
which Member State should examine an application for asylum. In
December 2000, the Council adopted a Regulation to set up EURODAC
to support the operation of the Convention.[26]
In 2003, the Convention was replaced by EC legislation (the Dublin
Regulation).[27]
4.2 EURODAC is a computerised database of the fingerprints
of applicants for asylum who are aged at least 14, third country
nationals and stateless people aged at least 14 who have been
apprehended in connection with an illegal crossing of a Member
State's land, sea or air borders and people aged at least 14 who
have been found illegally present in a Member State. The Member
State collects the fingerprints and transmits them electronically
to the EURODAC Central Unit with a request to be told if there
is a match (a "hit") between the fingerprints and those
stored in the database. If there is a hit — because, for
example, the data subject had made an earlier application to another
Member State — the information can be used to help establish
which Member State is responsible for examining the application
for asylum.
4.3 In 2007, the Commission published a report on
its evaluation of the operation of the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations.[28]
It said that, in general, all Member States were applying the
EURODAC Regulation in a satisfactory way but that the Commission
believed there was potential to improve EURODAC's efficiency and
extend its scope.
4.4 Article 63(1)(a) of the EC Treaty requires the
Council to adopt measures on the criteria and mechanisms for determining
which Member State is responsible for considering an application
for asylum made by a national of a third country in a Member State.
The Article provides the legal base for the EURODAC Regulations.
4.5 The fourth Protocol to the EC Treaty provides
that the United Kingdom is not bound by a measure adopted by the
Council under Title IV of the Treaty (visas, asylum, immigration
and other policies related to the free movement of persons) unless
the Government opts into it. The UK Government opted into the
EURODAC Regulations and the UK is bound by them.
The document
4.6 The Commission proposes the repeal of the EURODAC
Regulation of December 2000 and the supplementary Regulation of
2002 and their replacement by this new Regulation. While the draft
Regulation contains some new provisions, most of its Articles
re-enact, with amendments, the substance of the current EURODAC
legislation. For example, the draft Regulation:
- widens the purpose of EURODAC
to include the provision of assistance in determining which Member
State should examine applications for subsidiary protection (at
present, it is confined to assisting in the determination of responsibility
for applications for refugee status);
- provides that a Management Authority, funded
from the EU budget, should be responsible for the operational
management of EURODAC (it would also be the Management Authority
for the next generation on the Schengen Information System and
the Visa Information System);
- gives Member States up to 48 hours to transmit
to EURODAC the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and third
country nationals and stateless people apprehended in connection
with an irregular crossing of a Member State's borders (at present,
no time limit is specified);
- provides that, within a year of the collection
of the fingerprints of people apprehended in connection with an
irregular crossing, the data must be erased from the EURODAC database
(at present, it is deleted after two years);
- enables Member States to search the EURODAC data
on people who have been granted international protection;
- requires a Member State to inform EURODAC if
it decides for humanitarian or compassionate reasons to examine
an application for international protection which has been lodged
with it even if it is not responsible for doing the examination
according to the criteria in the Dublin Regulation; and
- provides additional safeguards for data subjects
and makes provision to reflect the responsibilities of the European
Data Protection Supervisor for oversight of EURODAC.
The Government's view
4.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 23 December
2008, the Minister of State at the Home Office (Mr Phil Woolas)
tells us that the Government welcomes some of the Commission's
proposals, including those for the extension of EURODAC to people
applying for subsidiary protection, the additional safeguards
for data subjects, and to enable Member States to search data
on people who have been granted asylum.
4.8 The Government is also content with the proposed
requirement to transmit fingerprints within 48 hours but thinks
that further consideration is required about how to deal with
delays beyond the time-limit caused because the data subject's
skin quality is too poor (for whatever reason) to provide fingerprints
of acceptable quality.
4.9 The Government will ask the Commission for further
information about the proposed Management Authority.
4.10 The Government would prefer to retain the present
provision for EURODAC to store for two years data on people apprehended
in connection with an irregular crossing of a Member State's borders
and does not support, therefore, the proposal to reduce the period
of storage to one year. The Minister explains that the UK's experience
of hits given in the second year is that they provide information
which has been significant in addressing the credibility of claims
for asylum.
4.11 The Minister also tells us that the Government
has not yet decided whether to opt into the draft Directive. In
making the decision, it will have particular regard to:
- whether participation in the
proposed Regulation would support the achievement of the Government's
objectives for asylum;
- the extent to which the draft Regulation can
be improved in the negotiations on it; and
- the implications for the UK's broader relationships
with the EU and Member States.
Conclusion
4.12 There appears to be no doubt about the practical
value of EURODAC and we welcome the Commission's aim of making
it yet more useful and efficient. Most of the proposed changes
appear to be minor and desirable but we can understand the Government's
practical reservations about some of them.
4.13 We are grateful to the Minister for telling
us the factors to which the Government will have particular regard
in deciding whether to opt into the draft Directive. No doubt
it will also be influenced by the decision whether to opt into
the draft Regulation on the determination of the Member State
responsible for examining an application from a third country
national or stateless person for international protection. Because
of the close link between that proposal and the draft EURODAC
Regulation, we recommend that the two documents be debated by
the European Committee on the same occasion.
26 Council Regulation (EC) No. 2725/2000: OJ No. L
316, 15.12.2000, p.1. Regulation (EC) No. 407/2002 (OJ No. L 62,
5.3.02) contains detailed supplementary provision on, for example,
the format for the transmission of data to the Central Unit. Back
27
Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003: OJ No. L 50, 25.2.03, p.1. Back
28
(28695) 10517/07. Back
| 
