2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (Recast version) - Main contents

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	COM(2012)254 - Establishment of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] ...
document	COM(2012)254
date	May 30, 2012

Annex I

Data format for the exchange of fingerprint data

The following format is prescribed for the exchange of fingerprint data:

ANSI/NIST - CSL 1 1993 ð ANSI/NIST-ITL 1a-1997, Ver.3, June 2001 (INT-1) ï and any future further developments of this standard.

Norm for Member State identification letters

The following ISO norm will apply: ISO 3166 - 2 letters code.

Annex II

é

ANNEX II Repealed Regulations (referred to in Article 45)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000/EC Council Regulation (EC) No 407/2002/EC || (OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1.) (OJ L 062, 05.03.2002 p. 1.)

ANNEX III Correlation table

Regulation 2725/2000/EC || This Regulation

Article 1(1) || Article 1(1)

Article 1(2), first subparagraph || Article 3(1)

Article 1(2), second subparagraph || Deleted

Article 1(2), third subparagraph || Article 3(4)

Article 1(3) || Article 1(3)

Article 2 || Article 2

Article 3(1) || deleted

Article 3(2) || Article 3(3)

Article 3(3) || Article 8

Article 3(4) || Deleted

Article 4(1) || Article 9(1), 3(5)

Article 4(2) || Deleted

Article 4(3) || Article 9(3)

Article 4(4) || Article 9(4)

Article 4(5) || Article 9(5)

Article 4(6) || Article 25(4)

Article 5 || Article 11

Article 6 || Article 12

Article 7 || Article 13

Article 8 || Article 14

Article 9 || Article 15

Article 10 || Article 16

Article 11(1)-(4) || Article 17(1)-(4)

Article 11(5) || Deleted

Article 12 || Article 18

Article 13 || Article 23

Article 14 || Deleted

Article 15 || Article 27

Article 16 || Article 28

Article 17 || Article 37

Article 18 || Article 29

Article 19 || Article 30

Article 20 || Deleted

Article 21 || Article 39

Article 22 || Deleted

Article 23 || Deleted

Article 24 || Article 40

Article 25 || Article 24

Article 26 || Article 42

Article 27 || Article 46

Regulation 407/2002/EC || This Regulation

Article 2 || Article 24

Article 3 || Article 25

Article 4 || Article 26

Article 5(1) || Article 3(3)

Annex I || Annex I

Annex II || Deleted

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

              1.1.    Title of the proposal/initiative

              1.2.    Policy area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB structure

              1.3.    Nature of the proposal/initiative

              1.4.    Objective(s)

              1.5.    Grounds for the proposal/initiative

              1.6.    Duration and financial impact

              1.7.    Management method(s) envisaged

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

              2.1.    Monitoring and reporting rules

              2.2.    Management and control system

              2.3.    Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

              3.1.    Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

              3.2.    Estimated impact on expenditure

              3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on expenditure

              3.2.2. Estimated impact on [body]'s appropriations

              3.2.3. Estimated impact on [body]'s human resources

              3.2.4. Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework

              3.2.5. Third-party participation in financing

              3.3.    Estimated impact on revenue

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

11. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

11.1.      Title of the proposal/initiative

Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the establishment of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person] and to request comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice.

11.2.      Policy area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB structure[44]

Area of Home Affairs (title 18)

Activity: Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (chapter 18.02.11)

11.3.      Nature of the proposal/initiative

¨ The proposal/initiative relates to a new action

¨ The proposal/initiative relates to a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action[45]

x The proposal/initiative relates to the extension of an existing action

¨ The proposal/initiative relates to an action redirected towards a new action

11.4.      Objectives

11.4.1.   The Commission's multiannual strategic objective(s) targeted by the proposal/initiative

Not applicable

11.4.2.   Specific objective(s) and ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

Specific objective No. 1

Contribute to the completion of the Common European Asylum System by adopting higher common standards of protection, supporting practical cooperation and increasing solidarity within the EU and between the EU and third countries with the support of the European Refugee Fund.

Specific objective No. 2

Facilitate the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences.

ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

18 02 – Solidarity – External Borders, Return, Visa Policy and Free Movement of People

11.4.3.   Expected result(s) and impact

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

This proposal retains from the previous proposal [COM (2010) 555 final] the improvements of the system as regards new, asylum-focused functionalities and, at the same time, adds the functionality of law enforcement searches originally proposed in COM (2009) 342 final and COM (2009) 344 final.

The proposal will better manage and protect the data of data subjects while it will also facilitate Member States' procedures to determine the Member State responsible for the assessment of an asylum claim. It will facilitate prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences by allowing access to EURODAC for consultation for law enforcement purposes.

11.4.4.   Indicators of results and impact

Specify the indicators for monitoring implementation of the proposal/initiative.

Concerning the improvements to the efficiency of EURODAC and the better addressing of data protection concerns, the indicators would be the annual statistics on the operation of EURODAC, eg. those on missed hits and wrong hits, transmission delays, etc., together with the four-yearly evaluation of EURODAC. The modification to "mark" data instead of "block" data as in the original Regulation should be implemented by the IT Agency within two years after the publication of this Regulation. Success will be measured through the annual EURODAC report that will highlight how many cases were marked, together with responses in the four-yearly evaluation from Member States noting whether this information permitted a transfer back to the country that should have been hosting the data subject. The change in the rules on deletion of data is designed to ensure that no EU citizen's data are stored in EURODAC. This can be tested when future nations acceed to the EU (such as Croatia) to ensure that all data concerning Croatian nationals are deleted automatically. The success of this change will be reported in the four-yearly evalaution.

Concerning the facilitation of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences, the indicators would be the statistics on the number of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences prevented, detected and investigated as a result of a EURODAC consultation for law enforcement purposes. The IT modifications to permit comparisons with latent fingerprints should be completed by the IT Agency two years after the publication of this Regulation. It is not possible to anticipate the number of requests that will be made for law enforcement purposes, but if even only a few serious crimes are solved or prevented over a period of several years, the investment will have been merited. There are significant safeguards in the proposal designed to prevent excessive use of the law enforcement access tool (must be a serious crime as laid down by the European Arrest Warrant, and there must have been a Prüm check first) therefore one indicator of success will also be that the requests are limited only to those falling within these strict boundaries.

Statistics sets are requested in Article 40 of the Recast.

11.5.      Grounds for the proposal/initiative

11.5.1.   Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term

As elaborated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal in sections 1, 3, 5 and 7:

In order to inform Member States of the status of those applicants who have in fact been already granted international protection in a Member State, data on refugees should be deblocked (i.e. made available for searches).

In order to better facilitate the application of the Dublin Regulation, Member States will be required to indicate in EURODAC the fact that they apply the sovereignty or the humanitarian clauses provided for by that Regulation, ie. assume responsibility for the assessment of the claim of an applicant for whom they would not normally be responsible under the criteria of the Dublin Regulation.

In order to ensure consistency with the asylum acquis, the scope of the Regulation is proposed to be extended to cover subsidiary protection.

In order to ensure consistency with the asylum acquis, the storage period for data on third country nationals or stateless persons fingerprinted in connection with the irregular crossing of an external border is proposed to be aligned with the period until which Article 10(1) of the Dublin Regulation allocates responsibility on the basis of that information (i.e. one year).

Based on the outcome of negotiations in the Council, a new Article was introduced in order to provide information to Member States on the status of the data subject (asylum seekers or irregular entrant). This article foresees that Member States are also informed if a given person, whose data is stored in the database, was transferred following a Dublin take charge procedure, or if he or she left the territory of the Member States, either voluntarily or as the result of a return decision or removal order.

In order to facilitate prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences, access for consultation for law enforcement purposes to EURODAC will be allowed.

11.5.2.   Added value of EU involvement

Cross-border crime is increasing and presents one of the most serious threats to our society as reported by Europol. Without adequate and efficient cooperation between law enforcement authorities of Member States, including access to relevant information held in other Member States, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for these authorities to perform their duties in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorists offences and other serious criminal offences and hence to fight such cross-border crime effectively. Because of the very nature of these crimes, instruments on an EU level are required to set the ground for cooperation between Member States.

In addition, action at the EU level will help to ensure harmonised provisions on safeguarding data protection, whereas if Member States are left to legislate independently, a harmonised level of safeguards will be difficult to achieve. Furthermore, absence of action at EU level would be detrimental for data protection as it compels law enforcement authorities to process much more data than is required if they had access to a central index of available data. In addition, as the safeguards would not be harmonised at EU level, the level of protection of individuals with regard to the protection of their personal data could vary sensibly between Member States. The reason for this is that they have to resort to requests for the data to all Member States, rather than a single request to the relevant Member State. All these requests ultimately lead to the processing of much more data, which itself is detrimental to data protection.

As EURODAC is a fingerprint database run currently by the European Commission and in future by the IT Agency, it is only possible for the Union to make the necessary upgrades to the EURODAC system as identified by the last evaluation of EURODAC. The Central Unit needs to make the changes concerning the marking of data (instead of marking, as before). Member States wishing to access EURODAC for law enforcement purposes can only do so via a centrally coordinated system as provided for in this EURODAC Recast Regulation. The Union must therefore provide the basis through which the comparison of latent fingerprints from a crime scene may be made with live fingerprints taken in the course of applying for asylum. Such a comparison of data would not be possible without action at the level of the Union.

11.5.3.   Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past

EURODAC has been a succesfully operation database since 15 January 2003 containing the fingerprints of all asylum seekers within the EU. Most of its original specifications have served their intended functions well, but as shown by the evaluation of Dublin and EURODAC in 2007[46] it is necessary to make certain modifications to improve its usage. The majority of amendments made via this Recast Regulation are therefore on the basis of the lessons learned through the prior evaluation. In addition, using EURODAC for law enforcement purposes is a further efficiency as it will better utilise already existing data for only a small outlay of EU investment.

11.5.4.   Coherence and possible synergy with other relevant instruments

The present proposal was drafted in full coherence with the recast proposal on the Dublin Regulation.[47]

11.6.      Duration and financial impact

¨ Proposal/initiative of limited duration

– ¨ Proposal/initiative in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

– ¨ Financial impact from YYYY to YYYY

x Proposal/initiative of unlimited duration

– Implementation with a start-up period from YYYY to YYYY,

– followed by full-scale operation.

11.7.      Management mode(s) envisaged[48]

x Centralised indirect management with the delegation of implementation tasks to:

– ¨ executive agencies

– x bodies set up by the European Union[49]

– ¨ national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service mission

– ¨ persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union and identified in the relevant basic act within the meaning of Article 49 of the Financial Regulation

¨ Joint management with international organisations (to be specified)

If more than one management mode is indicated, please provide details in the "Comments" section.

Comments

EURODAC will be transferred to the European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (the "IT Agency"). The additional features specified in the EURODAC Recast will be developed by the IT Agency.

12. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

12.1.      Monitoring and reporting rules

Specify frequency and conditions.

Monitoring of the efficiency of the changes introduced by the present proposal is to be performed in the framework of the annual reports on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit. Monitoring of data protection issues will be performed by the European Data Protection Supervisor.

National competent authorities for the supervision of the processing of personal data should monitor the lawfulness of the processing of personal data by the Member States, and the Joint Supervisory Body set up by the Europol Decision should monitor the lawfulness of data processing activities performed by Europol.

The original EURODAC Regulation contained Article 24 concerning evaluation of EURODAC. This Recast proposal also includes an Article (40) concerning monitoring and evaluation.

12.2.      Management and control system

12.2.1.   Risk(s) identified

Failing to make important amendments to the Regulation in force, the efficiency of EURODAC could be undermined, as well as its supporting role to the implementation of the Dublin Regulation. Not being able to keep up with the changes of the asylum and data protection acquis would be also an important risk.

12.2.2.   Control method(s) envisaged

The indicators will be the statistics on the operation of EURODAC, eg. those on missed hits and wrong hits, transmission delays, etc.

12.3.      Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities

Specify existing or envisaged prevention and protection measures.

In order to combat fraud, corruption and other unlawful activities, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1037/1999 shall apply without restriction to the Agency responsible for the operational management of EURODAC.

The Agency shall also accede to the interinstitutional Agreement concerning internal investigations by the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) and shall issue, without delay, the appropriate provisions applicable to all the employees of the Agency.

The decisions concerning funding and the implementation agreements and instruments resulting from them shall explicitly stipulate that the Court of Auditors and OLAF shall carry out, if necessary, on-the-spot checks among the recipients of the Agency's funding and the agents responsible for allocating it.

13. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

13.1.      Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

– Existing expenditure budget lines

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Budget line || Type of expenditure || Contribution

Number [Description………………………...……….] || Diff./non-diff. ([50]) || from EFTA[51] countries || from candidate countries[52] || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 18(1)(aa) of the Financial Regulation

3A || 18.02.11.01 Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice — Contribution to Titles 1 and 2 18.02.11.02 Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice — Contribution to Title 3 || DA || NO || NO || YES || NO

– New budget lines requested

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Budget line || Type of expenditure || Contribution

Number [Heading……………………………………..] || Diff./non-diff. || from EFTA countries || from candidate countries || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 18(1)(aa) of the Financial Regulation

|| [XX.YY.YY.YY] || || YES/NO || YES/NO || YES/NO || YES/NO

13.2.      Estimated impact on expenditure

13.2.1.   Summary of estimated impact on expenditure

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework: || Number || [Heading 3A]

DG: <Home Affairs> || || || Year N[53] (2013) || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || || … enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || TOTAL

Title 1 (Human Resources)[54] || Commitments || (1) || 0.128 || 0.064 || 0.064 || || || || || 0.256

Payments || (2) || 0.128 || 0.064 || 0.064 || || || || || 0.256

Title 2 (Other Administrative Expenditure)[55] || Commitments || (1a) || 0.100 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0.100

Payments || (2a) || 0.100 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 0.100

Title 3 (Operational Expenditure) || Commitments || (3a) || 2.415 || 0 || 0 || || || || || 2.415

|| Payments || (3b) || 1.690 || 0.725 || 0 || || || || || 2.415

TOTAL appropriations for DG <Home Affairs> || Commitments || =1+1a +3a || 2.643 || 0.064 || 0.064 || || || || || 2.771

Payments || =2+2a +3b || 1.918 || 0.789 || 0.064 || || || || || 2.771

Heading of multiannual financial framework: || 5 || " Administrative expenditure "

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| || || Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || TOTAL

DG: <Home Affairs> ||

Ÿ Human resources || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || ||

Ÿ Other administrative expenditure || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || ||

TOTAL DG <Home Affairs> || Appropriations || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || (Total commitments = Total payments) || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || ||

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| || || Year N[56] || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || TOTAL

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 5 of the multiannual financial framework || Commitments || 2.643 || 0.064 || 0.064 || || || || || 2.771

Payments || 1.918 || 0.789 || 0.064 || || || || || 2.771

13.2.2.   Estimated impact on [body] appropriations

– ¨ The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

– x The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below:

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Indicate objectives and outputs ò || || || Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || TOTAL

OUTPUTS

Type of output[57] || Average cost of the output || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Total number of outputs || Total cost

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 1[58] Asylum Requirements deriving from the EURODAC Regulation

Changes other than for Law Enforcement Access || Imple || || 1 || 0.100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || || || || 0.100

|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Sub-total for specific objective N°1 || 1 || 0.100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || || || || || || 0.100

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 2 facilitate prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences

Changes for Law Enforcement Access || Imple || || 1 || 2.543 || 1 || 0.064 || 1 || 0.064 || || || || || || || || || || 2.671

Sub-total for specific objective N°2 || 1 || 2.543 || 1 || 0.064 || 1 || 0.064 || || || || || || || || || || 2.671

TOTAL COST || 2 || 2.643 || 1 || 0.064 || 1 || 0.064 || || || || || || || || || || 2.771

13.2.3.   Estimated impact on the IT Agency's human resources

13.2.3.1.          Summary

– ¨ The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an administrative nature

– x The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative nature, as explained below:

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| Year N [59] || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || TOTAL

Officials (AD Grades) || || || || || || || ||

Officials (AST grades) || || || || || || || ||

Contractual agent || 0.128 || 0.064 || 0.064 || || || || || 0.256

Temporary agents || || || || || || || ||

Seconded National Experts || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL || 0.128 || 0.064 || 0.064 || || || || || 0.256

Annual Human Resources Requirements || N || N+1 || N+2

Total number of Human Resources || 2 || 1 || 1

Existing IT Agency staff cannot be used for the upgrade of EURODAC because they are not development staff and are needed to operate the existing EURODAC functionalities. The changes provided by this Recast to permit the comparison of latent fingerprints from a crime-scene with live rolled fingerprints require expertise that the IT Agency and currently the Commission do not possess. As such, it will be necessary to hire contractual agents as follows:

Year N: Two contractual agents required to work the on technical tasks (technical specifications, technical support to the administrative tasks, coordination of internal services) as well as on the call for tender preparation and publication, opening committee, evaluation committee, evaluation report, award decision, contract signature).

In years N+1 and N+2, one staff member would be needed for technical tasks (project management, follow-up of contract deliverables, deliverable quality check and acceptance, coordination of internal services, service orders, change requests).

By year N+3 the new functionalities will become operational once the development phase is complete and as such no additional staff should be required.

13.2.3.2.          Estimated requirements of human resources for the parent DG

– x The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources

– ¨ The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below:

Estimate to be expressed in full amounts (or at most to one decimal place)

|| Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6)

Ÿ Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary agents) ||

XX 01 01 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) || || || || || || ||

XX 01 01 02 (Delegations) || || || || || || ||

XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research) || || || || || || ||

10 01 05 01 (Direct research) || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || ||

Ÿ External personnel (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)[60] ||

XX 01 02 01 (CA, INT, SNE from the "global envelope") || || || || || || ||

XX 01 02 02 (CA, INT, JED, LA and SNE in the delegations) || || || || || || ||

XX 01 04 yy [61] || - at Headquarters[62] || || || || || || ||

- in delegations || || || || || || ||

XX 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Indirect research) || || || || || || ||

10 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Direct research) || || || || || || ||

Other budget lines (specify) || || || || || || ||

TOTAL || || || || || || ||

XX is the policy area or budget title concerned.

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints.

Description of tasks to be carried out:

Officials and temporary agents ||

External personnel ||

Description of the calculation of cost for FTE equivalent should be included in the Annex, section 3.

13.2.4.   Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework

– x Proposal/initiative is compatible with both the 2007-13 and 2014-20 multiannual financial frameworks.

– ¨ Proposal/initiative will entail reprogramming of the relevant heading in the multiannual financial framework.

Explain what reprogramming is required, specifying the budget lines concerned and the corresponding amounts.

– ¨ Proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility instrument or revision of the multiannual financial framework[63].

Explain what is required, specifying the headings and budget lines concerned and the corresponding amounts.

13.2.5.   Third-party contributions

– The proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third parties

– The proposal/initiative provides for the co-financing estimated below:

Appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || Total

Specify the co-financing body || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations cofinanced || || || || || || || ||

13.3.      Estimated impact on revenue

– ¨ Proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.

– x Proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:

¨         on own resources

(1) x      on miscellaneous revenue

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Budget revenue line: || Appropriations available for the ongoing budget year || Impact of the proposal/initiative[64]

Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || … insert as many columns as necessary in order to reflect the duration of the impact (see point 1.6)

|| || || || || || || ||

For miscellaneous assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.

Revenue line 6312

Specify the method for calculating the impact on revenue.

[NO, IS, CH and FL contribute for a total of 12.452% in the payments made over a given year]

[1]               OJ L 062, 05.03.2002, p. 1.

[2]               Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EC) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person], COM(2008)825 final.

[3]               Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. OJ L 50, 25.02.2003, p. 1

[4]               The Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice [COM(2009) 293 final] was adopted on 24 June 2009. An amended proposal was adopted on 19 March 2010: Amended proposal for a Regulation (EU) No …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing an Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, COM(2010)93.

[5]               Establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints (recast), P6_TA(2009)0378.

[6]               Such a proposal was called for by Council Conclusions on access to Eurodac by Member States’ police and law enforcement authorities as well as Europol of 12 and 13 June 2007.

[7]               COM(2009) 344.

[8]               COM(2009) 665 final/2.

[9]               COM(2010) 555 final.

[10]             COM(2005) 597.

[11]             See pages 15-16 and 57 of the 2009 Impact Assessment SEC(2009) 936.

[12]             See the reference to "interference" in Judgment of the ECJ of 20 May 2003, Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others. Joined Cases C-465/2000, C-138/01 and C-139/01, ECR [2003], p. I-4989, paragraph 83

[13]             Joined applications 30562/04 and 30566/04, S. and Marper v. United Kingdom, judgment of 4 December 2008.

[14]             One to ensure consistency with the Dublin Regulation and one to clarify the need for having the system's automated hit replies verified by a fingerprints expert.

[15]             SEC(2008) 2981 and SEC(2009) 936

[16]             COM(2007) 301.

[17]             Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in Denmark or any other Member State of the European Union and “Eurodac” for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (OJ L 66, 8.3.2006).

[18]             Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway (OJ L 93, 3.4.2001, p. 40).

[19]             Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 5).

[20]             Protocol between 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 Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (OJ L 160 18.6.2011 p. 39)

[21]             Protocol between the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Switzerland (2006/0257 CNS, concluded on 24.10.2008, publication in OJ pending) and Protocol to the Agreement between the Community, Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State, Iceland and Norway (OJ L 93, 3.4.2001).

[22]             SEC(2008) 2981 and SEC(2009) 936

[23]             COM(2012) XXX.

[24]             OJ L 92 10.04.2010, p. 1

[25]             OJ C 189, 7.7.2000, p. 105 and p. 227 and opinion delivered on 21 September 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

[26]             OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1.

[27]             OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p. 1.

[28]             COM(2008)XXX.

[29]             COM(2005) 597, 24.11.2005.

[30]             OJ L 121, 15.5.2009, p. 37

[31]             OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12.

[32]             OJ L 286, 1.11.2011, p. 1.

[33]             OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3.

[34]             OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1.

[35]             OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

[36]             OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

[37]             OJ L 350, 30.12.2008, p. 60.

[38]             OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

[39]             OJ L 66, 8.3.2006, p. 38.

[40]             OJ L 93, 3.4.2001, p. 40.

[41]             OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 5

[42]             OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 39.

[43]             OJ 45, 14.6.1962, p. 1385.

[44]             ABM: Activity-Based Management – ABB: Activity-Based Budgeting.

[45]             As referred to in Article 49(6)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

[46]             COM(2007) 299 final

[47]             Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, COM(2008) 820.

[48]             Details of management modes and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on the BudgWeb site: http://www.cc.cec/budg/man/budgmanag/budgmanag_en.html

[49]             As referred to in Article 185 of the Financial Regulation.

[50]             Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-Diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations

[51]             EFTA: European Free Trade Association.

[52]             Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidate countries from the Western Balkans.

[53]             Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts.

[54]             See 13.2.3.1 for explanation of HR costs

[55]             Conferences, meetings, other administrative expenses.

[56]             Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts.

[57]             Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.).

[58]             As described in Section 1.4.2. "Specific objective(s)…"

[59]             Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts.

[60]             CA= Contract Agent; INT= agency staff ("Intérimaire"); JED= "Jeune Expert en Délégation" (Young Experts in Delegations); LA= Local Agent; SNE= Seconded National Expert;

[61]             Under the ceiling for external personnel from operational appropriations (former "BA" lines).

[62]             Essentially for Structural Funds, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European Fisheries Fund (EFF).

[63]             See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement.

[64]             As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 25% for collection costs.