In its Communication of 13 February 2008 entitled ‘Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union’, the Commission outlined the need, as part of the Union’s integrated border management strategy, to establish an Entry/Exit System (EES) which registers electronically the time and place of entry and exit of third-country nationals admitted for a short stay to the territory of the Member States and which calculates the duration of their authorised stay.
(2)
The European Council of 19 and 20 June 2008 underlined the importance of continuing to work on the development of the Union’s integrated border management strategy, including better use of modern technologies to improve the management of external borders.
(3)
In its Communication of 10 June 2009 entitled ‘An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizens’, the Commission advocated for the establishment of an electronic system for recording entry to and exit from the territory of the Member States at external borders to ensure a more effective management of access to that territory.
(4)
The European Council of 23 and 24 of June 2011 called for work on ‘smart borders’ to be pushed forward rapidly. On 25 October 2011, the Commission published a Communication entitled ‘Smart borders – options and the way ahead’.
(5)
In its strategic guidelines adopted in June 2014, the European Council stressed that the Schengen area, allowing people to travel without internal border controls, and the increasing numbers of people travelling to the Union require efficient management of the Union’s common external borders to ensure strong protection. It also stressed that the Union must mobilise all the tools at its disposal to support the Member States in their task and that, to this end, integrated border management of external borders should be modernised in a cost efficient way to ensure smart border management, inter alia, with an entry-exit system and supported by the new agency for large-scale IT systems (eu-LISA).
(6)
In its Communication of 13 May 2015 entitled ‘A European agenda on migration’, the Commission noted that a new phase would come with the ‘Smart Borders’ initiative to increase the efficiency of border crossings, facilitating crossings for the large majority of ‘bona fide’ third country travellers, whilst at the same time strengthening the fight against irregular migration by creating a record of all cross-border movements by third-country nationals, fully respecting proportionality.
(7)
With a view to further improving the management of the external borders and, in particular, in order to verify compliance with the provisions on the authorised period of stay on the territory of the Member States, an EES should be established, which registers electronically the time and place of entry and exit of third-country nationals admitted for a short stay to the territory of the Member States and which calculates the duration of their authorised stay. It should replace the obligation to stamp the passports of third-country nationals which is applicable to all Member States.
(8)
It is necessary to specify the objectives of the EES, the categories of data to be entered into the EES, the purposes for which the data are to be used, the criteria for their entry, the authorities authorised to access the data, further rules on data processing and the protection of personal data, as well as the technical architecture of the EES, rules concerning its operation and use, and interoperability with other information systems. It is also necessary to define responsibilities for the EES.
(9)
The EES should apply to third-country nationals admitted for a short stay to the territory of the Member States. It should also apply to third-country nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused.
(10)
The EES should be operated at the external borders of the Member States which apply the Schengen acquis in full. It is desirable that Member States not yet applying the Schengen acquis in full apply it fully by the start of operations of the EES. However, in the event that the lifting of controls at internal borders cannot be achieved by the start of operations of the EES, it is necessary to specify the conditions for the operation of the EES by those Member States which do not apply the Schengen acquis in full and lay down the provisions for the operation and use of the EES at internal borders where controls have not yet been lifted.
As regards the conditions for the operation of the EES, the EES should be operated at the external borders of the Member States which do not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full but for which the verification in accordance with the applicable Schengen evaluation procedure has already been successfully completed, to which passive access to the Visa Information System (VIS) established by Council Decision 2004/512/EC (3) has been granted for the purpose of operating the EES and for which the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System (SIS), established by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), have been put into effect in accordance with the relevant Act of Accession. As regards the provisions on the operation and use of the EES by the Member States fulfilling such conditions, the EES should be operated at all internal borders of those Member States where the controls have not yet been lifted. However, specific provisions on the operation and use of the EES at such borders should apply, in order to minimise the impact of the border check procedure at such borders, while not affecting the level of security and the proper functioning of the EES and without prejudice to the other border control obligations under Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).
(11)
The duration of the authorised stay of third-country nationals on the territory of the Member States for the purpose of this Regulation results from the applicable Schengen acquis.
(12)
An automated calculator should be included in the EES. The automated calculator should take into account stays on the territory of the Member States which operate the EES for the calculation of the overall limit of 90 days in any 180-day period. Any extensions of authorised stay should be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of that overall limit on the subsequent entry of the third-country national to the territory of the Member States. Stays on the territory of Member States which do not yet operate the EES should be counted separately on the basis of stamps affixed in the travel documents of third-country nationals.
(13)
The automated calculator should only take into account stays on the territory of Member States which do not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full but operate the EES for the purposes of verifying compliance with the overall limit of 90 days in any 180-day period and for the purposes of verifying the period of validity of a Schengen short-stay visa. The automated calculator should not calculate the duration of stay as authorised by a national short-stay visa issued by a Member State which does not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full but operates the EES. When calculating the duration of stay authorised by a Schengen short-stay visa, the automated calculator should not take into account stays on the territory of Member States which do not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full but operate the EES.
(14)
Precise rules should be laid down as regards the responsibility for the development and operation of the EES and the responsibility of the Member States for their connection to the EES. The European agency for the operational management of large-scale information systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, established by Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), should be responsible for the development and operational management of a centralised EES in accordance with this Regulation. Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(15)
The objectives of the EES should be to improve the management of external borders, to prevent irregular immigration and to facilitate the management of migration flows. The EES should, in particular and when relevant, contribute to the identification of any person who does not fulfil or no longer fulfils the conditions of duration of the authorised stay on the territory of the Member States. Additionally, the EES should contribute to the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences.
(16)
The EES should consist of a Central System (EES Central System), which operates a computerised central database of biometric and alphanumeric data, a National Uniform Interface in each Member State, a Secure Communication Channel between the EES Central System and the central Visa Information System (VIS Central System) of the VIS, and a secure and encrypted Communication Infrastructure between the EES Central System and the National Uniform Interfaces. Each Member State should connect its national border infrastructures to the National Uniform Interface in a secure manner. In order to enable the generation of statistics and reporting, a data repository should be established at central level. In order to enable third–country nationals to verify at any moment the remaining authorised stay, a web service should be developed. The web service should also enable carriers to verify whether third-country nationals holding a Schengen short-stay visa issued for one or two entries have already used the number of entries authorised by their visa. Relevant stakeholders should be consulted in the development phase of that web service. In establishing the technical specifications for the access of carriers to the web service, the impact on passenger travel and carriers should be limited to the extent possible. For this purpose, appropriate integration with relevant systems should be considered.
(17)
Interoperability should be established between the EES and the VIS by way of a direct communication channel between the VIS Central System and the EES Central System to enable the border authorities using the EES to consult the VIS in order to retrieve visa-related data to create or update entry/exit records or refusal of entry records, to enable the border authorities to verify the validity of the visa and the identity of the visa holder by directly searching the VIS with fingerprints at the borders at which the EES is operated and to enable the border authorities to verify the identity of visa-exempt third–country nationals against the VIS by using fingerprints. Interoperability should also enable the border authorities and visa authorities using the VIS to directly consult the EES from the VIS for the purposes of examining visa applications and of taking decisions relating to those applications, and of enabling visa authorities to update the visa-related data in the EES in the event that a visa is annulled, revoked or extended. Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) should therefore be amended accordingly. The retrieval of visa-related data from the VIS, their importation into the EES and the updating of data from the VIS in the EES should be an automated process once the operation in question is launched by the authority concerned. The purpose limitation principle should be respected when establishing interoperability between the EES and the VIS.
(18)
This Regulation should specify which authorities of the Member States may be authorised to have access to the EES in order to enter, amend, erase or consult data for the specific purposes of the EES and to the extent necessary for the performance of their tasks.
(19)
Any processing of EES data should be proportionate to the objectives pursued and necessary for the performance of the tasks of the competent authorities. When using the EES, the competent authorities should ensure that the human dignity and integrity of the person whose data are requested are respected and should not discriminate against persons on grounds of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.
(20)
The EES should record and process alphanumeric data and biometric data primarily for the purposes of improving the management of external borders, preventing irregular immigration and facilitating the management of migration flows. Furthermore, it should also be possible to access personal EES data in order to contribute to the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences only under the conditions laid down in this Regulation. The use of biometrics, despite its impact on the privacy of travellers, is justified for two reasons. First, biometrics are a reliable method of identifying third-country nationals who are present on the territory of the Member States but not in possession of travel documents or any other means of identification, a common situation for irregular migrants. Second, biometrics allow for a more reliable matching of entry and exit data of bona fide travellers. The use of facial images in combination with fingerprint data makes it possible to reduce the total number of fingerprints required to be registered, while enabling the same result in terms of accuracy of the identification.
(21)
Four fingerprints per visa-exempt third–country national should be registered in the EES, if physically possible, to allow for accurate verification and identification, thus ensuring that the third–country national is not already registered under another identity or with another travel document, and to guarantee that sufficient data are available in order to ensure that the objectives of the EES are achieved in every circumstance. The fingerprints of visa-holding third-country nationals should be checked against the VIS. The facial image of both visa-exempt and visa holding third-country nationals should be registered in the EES. Fingerprints or facial images should be used as a biometric identifier for verifying the identity of third–country nationals who have been previously registered in the EES, for as long as their individual files have not been deleted. In order to take into account the specificities of each border crossing point and the different kinds of borders, the national authorities should establish for each border crossing point whether the fingerprints or the facial image are to be used as the main biometric identifier for carrying out the required verification.
(22)
In the fight against terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences, it is necessary that designated authorities have the most up-to-date information if they are to perform their tasks. Access to VIS data for law enforcement purposes has already proven its usefulness in identifying people who died violently or in helping investigators to make substantial progress in cases related to trafficking in human beings, terrorism or illicit drug trafficking. Access to EES data is necessary to prevent, detect and investigate terrorist offences as referred to in Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) or other serious criminal offences as referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (9). It should be possible to use the EES data as an identity verification tool both in cases where the third–country national has destroyed his or her documents and where designated authorities are investigating a crime through the use of fingerprints or facial images and wish to establish an identity. It should also be possible to use such data as a tool to construct evidence by tracking the travel routes of a person suspected of having committed a crime or of a victim of crime. Therefore, the EES data should be available to the designated authorities of the Member States and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation established by Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) (‘Europol’), subject to the conditions and limitations set out in this Regulation.
The conditions of access to the EES for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences or of other serious criminal offences should be such as to allow the designated authorities of the Member States to tackle the cases of suspects using multiple identities. For this purpose, access to the EES should not be prevented where a hit is obtained during the consultation of a relevant database prior to accessing the EES. For law enforcement purposes and in order to prevent, detect and investigate terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences, a search of the database of the EES should be deemed proportionate if there is an overriding public security concern. Any search must be duly justified and proportionate in the light of the interest invoked.
(23)
Only designated authorities which are responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences or of other serious criminal offences, for which Member States can guarantee that all the provisions of this Regulation, as well as those of Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11), apply and for which the correct application of those provisions can be verified by the competent authorities, including the supervisory authority established in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/680, should be entitled to consult EES data.
(24)
Europol plays a key role with respect to cooperation between Member States’ authorities in the field of cross-border crime investigation through supporting Union-wide crime prevention, conducting analyses and carrying out investigations. Consequently, Europol should also have access to the EES within the framework of its tasks and in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/794. The European Data Protection Supervisor should monitor the processing of data by Europol and ensure full compliance with applicable data protection rules.
(25)
Access to the EES for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences constitutes an interference with the fundamental rights to respect for the private life of individuals and to protection of personal data of persons whose personal data are processed in the EES. Any such interference must be in accordance with the law, which must be formulated with sufficient precision to allow individuals to adjust their conduct, protect individuals against arbitrariness and indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner in which they are to exercise that discretion. Furthermore, any interference with those fundamental rights must be limited to that which is necessary in a democratic society to protect a legitimate and proportionate interest, and must be proportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved.
(26)
Comparisons of data on the basis of a dactyloscopic trace which may be found at a crime scene (‘latent fingerprint’) are fundamental in the field of police cooperation. The possibility to compare a latent fingerprint with the fingerprint data which are stored in the EES in cases where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the perpetrator or victim might be registered in the EES is necessary for the designated authorities of the Member States to prevent, detect or investigate terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences, where, for example, the only evidence at a crime scene consists of latent fingerprints.
(27)
It is necessary to designate the competent authorities of the Member States, as well as the central access points through which the requests for access to EES data are to be made, and to keep a list of the operating units within the designated authorities that are authorised to request such access for the specific purposes for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences or of other serious criminal offences.
(28)
Requests for access to EES data should be made by the operating units within the designated authorities to the central access point and should be duly justified. Operating units within the designated authorities that are authorised to request access to EES data should not act as a verifying authority. The central access point should be a body or entity entrusted by national law to exercise public authority and should be capable, by virtue of the quality and number of its staff, of effectively verifying whether the conditions to request access to the EES are fulfilled in each case. The central access points should act independently of the designated authorities and should be responsible for ensuring, in an independent manner, strict compliance with the conditions for access set out in this Regulation. In a case of urgency, where early access is necessary to respond to a specific and actual threat related to terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences, the central access point should be able to process the request immediately and carry out the verification afterwards.
(29)
To protect personal data and to exclude systematic searches, the processing of EES data should only take place in specific cases and when it is necessary for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences. The designated authorities and Europol should only request access to the EES when they have reasonable grounds to believe that such access will provide information that will substantially assist them in preventing, detecting or investigating terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences.
(30)
In addition, access to the EES for the purposes of identifying unknown suspects, perpetrators or victims of terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences should be allowed only on the condition that searches in the national databases of the Member State have been carried out and the search with the automated fingerprinting identification systems of all other Member States under Council Decision 2008/615/JHA (12) has been fully conducted, or the search has not been fully conducted within two days of being launched.
(31)
For the purpose of efficient comparison and exchange of personal data, Member States should fully implement and make use of the existing international agreements as well as of Union law concerning the exchange of personal data already in force, in particular Decision 2008/615/JHA.
(32)
The personal data stored in the EES should be kept for no longer than strictly necessary for the purposes for which the data are processed. It is sufficient to keep the data related to third-country nationals who have respected the duration of authorised stay in the EES for a period of three years for border management purposes in order to avoid the need for third–country nationals to re-register in the EES before that period has lapsed. This three-year data retention period will reduce the need for frequent re-registrations and will be beneficial for all travellers as both the average border crossing time and the waiting time at border crossing points will decrease. Even for a traveller entering the territory of the Member States only once, the fact that other travellers already registered in the EES do not have to re-register before the expiry of this three-year data retention period will reduce the waiting time at the border crossing point. This three-year data retention period is also necessary to facilitate and expedite border crossings including by using automated and self-service systems. It is also appropriate to set a three-year data retention period for third-country nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused. For third-country nationals who are members of the family of a Union citizen to whom Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) applies or of a third-country national enjoying the right of free movement under Union law and who do not hold a residence card pursuant to Directive 2004/38/EC, it is appropriate to store each coupled entry/exit record for a maximum period of one year after the date of the exit from the territory of the Member States linked to that record. Following the expiry of the relevant data retention periods, the data should be automatically erased.
(33)
It is necessary to keep data related to third-country nationals who have not exited the territory of the Member States within the authorised period of stay for a period of five years, in order to support the identification and return process. Those data should be automatically erased after the five–year period, unless there are grounds for erasing them earlier.
(34)
It is necessary to keep the personal data of third-country nationals who have respected the duration of authorised stay and of third-country nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused for a period of three years and to keep the personal data of third–country nationals who have not exited the territory of the Member States within the authorised period of stay for a period of five years, to allow the border guard to conduct the necessary risk analysis required by Regulation (EU) 2016/399 before authorising a traveller to enter the territory of the Member States. The processing of visa applications in consular posts also requires analysing the travel history of the applicant in order to assess the use of previous visas and whether the conditions of stay have been respected. The abandoning of passport stamping is to be compensated by a consultation of the EES. The travel history available in the EES should therefore cover a period of time which is sufficient for the purpose of visa issuance.
While conducting risk analyses at the border and while processing visa applications, the travel history of third-country nationals should be checked in order to determine whether they have exceeded the maximum duration of their authorised stay in the past. It is thus necessary to keep the personal data of third-country nationals who have not exited the territory of the Member States within the authorised period of stay for the longer period of five years compared to that for the personal data of third-country nationals who have respected the duration of authorised stay and of third-country nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused.
(35)
Rules on the liability of the Member States for damage arising from any breach of this Regulation should be laid down.
(36)
Without prejudice to more specific rules laid down in this Regulation for the processing of personal data, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14) should apply to the processing of personal data by the Member States in application of this Regulation unless such processing is carried out by the designated authorities or central access points of the Member States for the purposes of the prevention, investigation or detection of terrorist offences or of other serious criminal offences.
(37)
Without prejudice to more specific rules laid down in this Regulation for the processing of personal data, the national laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted pursuant to Directive (EU) 2016/680 should apply to the processing of personal data by the competent authorities of the Member States for the purposes of the prevention, investigation or detection of terrorist offences or of other serious criminal offences pursuant to this Regulation.
(38)
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (15) should apply to the activities of the Union institutions or bodies when carrying out their tasks as responsible for the operational management of EES.
(39)
Personal data obtained by a Member State pursuant to this Regulation should not be transferred or made available to any third country, international organisation or private entity established in or outside the Union. As an exception to that rule, however, it should be possible to transfer such personal data to a third country or to an international organisation where such a transfer is subject to strict conditions and necessary in individual cases in order to assist with the identification of a third-country national in relation to his or her return. In the absence of an adequacy decision by means of implementing act pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or of appropriate safeguards to which transfers are subject pursuant to that Regulation, it should be possible to exceptionally transfer, for the purposes of return, EES data to a third country or to an international organisation, only where it is necessary for important reasons of public interest as referred to in that Regulation.
(40)
It should also be possible to transfer personal data obtained by Member States pursuant to this Regulation to a third country in an exceptional case of urgency, where there is an imminent danger associated with a terrorist offence or where there is an imminent danger to the life of a person associated with a serious criminal offence. An imminent danger to the life of a person should be understood as covering a danger arising from a serious criminal offence committed against that person such as grievous bodily injury, illicit trade in human organs and tissue, kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and rape. Such data should only be transferred to a third country if the reciprocal provision of any information on entry/exit records held by the requesting third country to the Member States operating the EES is ensured. It should be possible for the competent authorities of the Member States whose designated authorities have access to the EES pursuant to this Regulation to transfer the EES data to Member States not operating the EES and to Member States to which this Regulation does not apply. Such provision of information should be subject to a duly motivated request, and limited to where it is necessary for the prevention, detection or investigation of a terrorist offence or another serious criminal offence. It should be possible for a Member State that operates the EES to provide such information only if a reciprocal provision of any information on entry/exit records held by the requesting Member State to the Member States operating the EES is ensured. Directive (EU) 2016/680 applies to all the subsequent treatment of data obtained from the EES.
(41)
In each Member State, the supervisory authority established in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the Member States, whilst the European Data Protection Supervisor should monitor the activities of the Union institutions and bodies in relation to the processing of personal data. The European Data Protection Supervisor and the supervisory authorities should cooperate with each other in the monitoring of the EES.
(42)
In each Member State, the supervisory authority established in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/680 should monitor the lawfulness of the processing by the Member States of personal data for law enforcement purposes.
(43)
In addition to the provisions on information to be provided in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, third–country nationals whose data are to be recorded in the EES should be provided with appropriate information in relation to the recording of those data. This information should be provided by Member States in writing by any appropriate means, including leaflets, posters or any other appropriate electronic means.
(44)
In order to ensure the effective monitoring of the application of this Regulation, this Regulation should be evaluated at regular intervals.
(45)
The Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and ensure that they are implemented.
(46)
In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16).
(47)
Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely the establishment of the EES and the creation of common obligations, conditions and procedures for use of data cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and impact of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
(48)
Following the start of operations of the EES, the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (17) (‘the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement’) should be amended with regard to bilateral agreements concluded by Member States and the authorised length of stay beyond 90 days in any 180-day period of visa-exempt third–country nationals. In its overall evaluation of the EES, the Commission should include an assessment of the use made of the bilateral agreements of Member States. It should be possible for the Commission to include options in the first evaluation report in view of phasing out such bilateral agreements and replacing them with a Union instrument.
(49)
The projected costs of the EES are lower than the budget earmarked for Smart Borders in Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (18). Accordingly, following the adoption of this Regulation, the Commission should, by means of a delegated act provided for in Regulation (EU) No 515/2014, re-allocate the amount currently attributed for developing IT systems supporting the management of migration flows across the external borders.
(50)
This Regulation is without prejudice to the application of Directive 2004/38/EC.
(51)
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement it in its national law.
(52)
This Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC (19); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
(53)
This Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (20); Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
(54)
As regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters’ association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (21) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (22).
(55)
As regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (23) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (24) and with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/149/JHA (25).
(56)
As regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (26) which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (27) and with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/349/EU (28).
(57)
As regards Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, the provisions of this Regulation relating to the SIS and the VIS constitute provisions building upon, or otherwise relating to, the Schengen acquis within, respectively, the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession, Article 4(2) of the 2005 Act of Accession and Article 4(2) of the 2011 Act of Accession read in conjunction with Council Decisions 2010/365/EU (29), (EU) 2017/733 (30) and (EU) 2017/1908 (31).
In addition, the operation of the EES requires the granting of passive access to the VIS and the putting into effect of all the provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the SIS in accordance with the relevant Council Decisions. Those conditions can only be met once the verification in accordance with the applicable Schengen evaluation procedure has been successfully completed. Therefore, the EES should be operated only by those Member States which fulfil those conditions by the start of operations of the EES. Member States not operating the EES from the initial start of operations should be connected to the EES in accordance with the procedure set out in this Regulation as soon as all of those conditions are met.
(58)
The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and delivered an opinion on 21 September 2016.
(59)
This Regulation establishes strict rules concerning access to the EES, as well as the necessary safeguards for such access. It also sets out the individuals’ rights of access, rectification, completion, erasure and redress, in particular the right to a judicial remedy and the supervision of processing operations by public independent authorities. This Regulation therefore respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right to human dignity, the prohibition of slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, respect for private and family life, the protection of personal data, the right to non-discrimination, the rights of the child, the rights of the elderly, the integration of persons with disabilities and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.
(60)
This Regulation is without prejudice to the obligations deriving from the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967,
