# Official Journal C 116/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 116 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4917 May 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 116

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4917 May 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 116/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 116/2 | State aid — Italy — State aid No C 11/2006 (ex N 127/2005) — Stranded costs for the municipalizzate — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2006/C 116/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4195 — Inchcape/Lind) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2006/C 116/4 | Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability (COM (2005) 490 final) | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 116/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 116/2

State aid — Italy — State aid No C 11/2006 (ex N 127/2005) — Stranded costs for the municipalizzate — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  )

1

2

2006/C 116/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4195 — Inchcape/Lind) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

European Data Protection Supervisor

2006/C 116/4

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability (COM (2005) 490 final)

8

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 17.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

16 May 2006

(2006/C 116/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2817 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4558 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68110 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3985 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5525 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 91,13 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8360 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5751 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,312 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 262,83 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9110 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5209 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,65 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,540 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8580 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6822 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4263 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9375 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0625 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0218 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 211,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1821 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2728 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2698 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 810,87 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,617 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,110 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,6280 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,893 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2817

JPY

Japanese yen

141,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4558

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68110

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3985

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5525

ISK

Iceland króna

91,13

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8360

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5751

CZK

Czech koruna

28,312

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

262,83

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9110

RON

Romanian leu

3,5209

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,65

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,540

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8580

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6822

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4263

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9375

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0625

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0218

KRW

South Korean won

1 211,21

ZAR

South African rand

8,1821

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2728

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2698

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 810,87

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,617

PHP

Philippine peso

67,110

RUB

Russian rouble

34,6280

THB

Thai baht

48,893

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 17.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/2

---

STATE AID — ITALY

State aid No C 11/2006 (ex N 127/2005) — Stranded costs for the municipalizzate

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2006/C 116/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 4 April 2006 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified Italy of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the aid in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| e-mail: Stateaidgreffe@cec.eu.int |
| Fax: (32-2) 296 12 42 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

B-1049 Brussels

e-mail: Stateaidgreffe@cec.eu.int

Fax: (32-2) 296 12 42

These comments will be communicated to Italy. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

TEXT OF SUMMARY

With this measure, Italy intends to reimburse local utility companies in the energy sector (so-called ‘municipalizzate’) for the stranded costs incurred during the liberalisation process of the energy sector. It follows a number of other similar cases, in particular the other Italian stranded costs case (1).

The measure consists in a grant of EUR 16,3 million to AEM Torino, which is the only municipalizzata to qualify for this type of aid.

AEM Torino is among the municipalizzate having benefited from previous aid, declared illegal and incompatible by the Commission (2).

The process of recovery of the aid has not been completed and the municipalizzate — and AEM Torino — have still to pay back the previous aid.

The assessment of the Commission of the measure is that the methodology to calculate the stranded costs to be reimbursed to AEM Torino are correct and are compatible with the methodology set out by the Commission and applied in the other cases (3).

However, given the fact that stranded costs cannot be cumulated with any other aid, and given the fact that the beneficiary has benefited from previous illegal and incompatible aid, the Commission is not in a position to control the combined effect of the two aids.

Further, the Commission has requested Italy to take the commitment, in application of the Deggendorf jurisprudence, not to pay the new aid before the reimbursement of the previous aid. Italy has declined to do so.

In these conditions, the Commission decides to open proceedings according to Article 88(2) EC Treaty.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘PROCEDIMENTO

| 1. | Le autorità italiane hanno notificato alla Commissione le misure di cui all'oggetto con lettera del 21 marzo 2005. La Commissione ha richiesto ulteriori informazioni con lettera del 4 maggio 2005. L'Italia ha inviato le informazioni richieste il 27 giugno 2005 e il 5 luglio 2005. La Commissione ha richiesto ulteriori informazioni il 19 luglio 2005 e inviato un sollecito all'Italia il 22 settembre 2005. L'Italia ha risposto il 3 ottobre 2005. La Commissione ha inviato una nuova nota all'Italia il 14 novembre 2005. L'Italia ha risposto a quest'ultima nota il 1o febbraio 2006. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Le autorità italiane hanno notificato alla Commissione le misure di cui all'oggetto con lettera del 21 marzo 2005. La Commissione ha richiesto ulteriori informazioni con lettera del 4 maggio 2005. L'Italia ha inviato le informazioni richieste il 27 giugno 2005 e il 5 luglio 2005. La Commissione ha richiesto ulteriori informazioni il 19 luglio 2005 e inviato un sollecito all'Italia il 22 settembre 2005. L'Italia ha risposto il 3 ottobre 2005. La Commissione ha inviato una nuova nota all'Italia il 14 novembre 2005. L'Italia ha risposto a quest'ultima nota il 1o febbraio 2006.

| 2. | Il lungo scambio di note può essere spiegato in primo luogo dalla necessità di ulteriori chiarimenti per la determinazione della metodologia di calcolo degli stranded costs, e in seguito dai problemi di cumulo che sono sorti. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Il lungo scambio di note può essere spiegato in primo luogo dalla necessità di ulteriori chiarimenti per la determinazione della metodologia di calcolo degli stranded costs, e in seguito dai problemi di cumulo che sono sorti.

BASE GIURIDICA

| 3. | La direttiva 96/92/CE ha dato inizio alla liberalizzazione del settore dell'energia. La Commissione ha riconosciuto che la transizione da una situazione di assenza di competizione ad un settore dell'energia liberalizzato può prevedere costi specifici per quelle società che sono state indotte ad investimenti in impianti per la produzione di energia elettrica non economici (4). |
| --- | --- |

3.

La direttiva 96/92/CE ha dato inizio alla liberalizzazione del settore dell'energia. La Commissione ha riconosciuto che la transizione da una situazione di assenza di competizione ad un settore dell'energia liberalizzato può prevedere costi specifici per quelle società che sono state indotte ad investimenti in impianti per la produzione di energia elettrica non economici (4).

| 4. | La base giuridica per la misura è basata sui seguenti atti:






  — | Decreto legislativo n. 79/99; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

La base giuridica per la misura è basata sui seguenti atti:

—

Decreto legislativo n. 79/99;

| — | Decreto ministeriale del 26.1.2000; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decreto ministeriale del 26.1.2000;

| — | Decreto ministeriale del 17.4.2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decreto ministeriale del 17.4.2001;

| — | Decreto legge n. 25 del 18.2.2003, convertito in Legge 17.4.2003, n. 83; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decreto legge n. 25 del 18.2.2003, convertito in Legge 17.4.2003, n. 83;

| — | Decreto ministeriale del 6.8.2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decreto ministeriale del 6.8.2004;

| — | Decreto ministeriale del 10.3.2005 che fissa i costi non recuperabili (stranded costs) per AEM Torino. Il decreto contiene una clausola sospensiva all'articolo 3, paragrafo 2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Decreto ministeriale del 10.3.2005 che fissa i costi non recuperabili (stranded costs) per AEM Torino. Il decreto contiene una clausola sospensiva all'articolo 3, paragrafo 2.

DESCRIZIONE DELLA MISURA

| 5. | La Commissione ha già approvato aiuti per i costi non recuperabili nel settore dell'energia in Italia (5). La decisione ha escluso le cosiddette aziende municipalizzate, di proprietà o ex proprietà degli enti locali. |
| --- | --- |

5.

La Commissione ha già approvato aiuti per i costi non recuperabili nel settore dell'energia in Italia (5). La decisione ha escluso le cosiddette aziende municipalizzate, di proprietà o ex proprietà degli enti locali.

| 6. | La base giuridica, il sistema di finanziamento e la metodologia utilizzata dalle autorità italiane per la determinazione dei costi non recuperabili in questo caso sono identici al caso di cui sopra. I calcoli effettuati secondo tale metodologia sono stati basati, per ciascun impianto, sulle due condizioni seguenti:






  — | Gli investimenti ammissibili sono stati effettuati prima del 19 febbraio 1997. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

La base giuridica, il sistema di finanziamento e la metodologia utilizzata dalle autorità italiane per la determinazione dei costi non recuperabili in questo caso sono identici al caso di cui sopra. I calcoli effettuati secondo tale metodologia sono stati basati, per ciascun impianto, sulle due condizioni seguenti:

—

Gli investimenti ammissibili sono stati effettuati prima del 19 febbraio 1997.

| — | I costi riferiti ad obblighi contrattuali e investimenti nell'ambito dello stesso gruppo sono stati esclusi. |
| --- | --- |

—

I costi riferiti ad obblighi contrattuali e investimenti nell'ambito dello stesso gruppo sono stati esclusi.

| 7. | Inoltre, la metodologia tiene conto dei certificati verdi. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Inoltre, la metodologia tiene conto dei certificati verdi.

| 8. | I calcoli effettuati dalle autorità italiane per tutte le aziende municipalizzate dimostrano che solo per un'azienda i calcoli sono stati positivi, cioè AEM Torino.
  Tabella 1: calcolo dell'importo | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | Totale |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AEM Torino | 1 675 | 4 829 | 5 273 | 4 560 | 16 338 |
| Cifre in milioni di euro. |

8.

I calcoli effettuati dalle autorità italiane per tutte le aziende municipalizzate dimostrano che solo per un'azienda i calcoli sono stati positivi, cioè AEM Torino.

Tabella 1: calcolo dell'importo

2000

2001

2002

2003

Totale

AEM Torino

1 675

4 829

5 273

4 560

16 338

Cifre in milioni di euro.

| 9. | L'aiuto sarà accordato sotto forma di sovvenzioni. Ammonterà a 16 338 000 milioni di euro. |
| --- | --- |

9.

L'aiuto sarà accordato sotto forma di sovvenzioni. Ammonterà a 16 338 000 milioni di euro.

| 10. | L'Italia presenterà una relazione annuale sull'attuazione della misura. |
| --- | --- |

10.

L'Italia presenterà una relazione annuale sull'attuazione della misura.

| 11. | L'Italia indica che la misura non può essere cumulabile con altri aiuti. |
| --- | --- |

11.

L'Italia indica che la misura non può essere cumulabile con altri aiuti.

CUMULO E PROCEDURA DEGGENDORF

| 12. | Il 5 giugno 2002 la Commissione ha preso una decisione negativa relativa agli aiuti di Stato accordati dall'Italia alle aziende municipalizzate italiane (imprese di servizi pubblici di proprietà di enti locali, qui di seguito indicate come “municipalizzate”) sotto forma di esenzioni dalle tasse e prestiti agevolati ad imprese di servizi pubblici, a prevalente capitale pubblico (6) (Aiuto di Stato C 27/99, ex NN 69/98). |
| --- | --- |

12.

Il 5 giugno 2002 la Commissione ha preso una decisione negativa relativa agli aiuti di Stato accordati dall'Italia alle aziende municipalizzate italiane (imprese di servizi pubblici di proprietà di enti locali, qui di seguito indicate come “municipalizzate”) sotto forma di esenzioni dalle tasse e prestiti agevolati ad imprese di servizi pubblici, a prevalente capitale pubblico (6) (Aiuto di Stato C 27/99, ex NN 69/98).

| 13. | La Commissione, nella sua decisione, ha dichiarato che siffatti regimi non notificati sono incompatibili ed illegittimi ed ha imposto allo Stato italiano di recuperare gli importi eventualmente erogati nel quadro dei regimi suddetti (7). |
| --- | --- |

13.

La Commissione, nella sua decisione, ha dichiarato che siffatti regimi non notificati sono incompatibili ed illegittimi ed ha imposto allo Stato italiano di recuperare gli importi eventualmente erogati nel quadro dei regimi suddetti (7).

| 14. | La procedura di recupero è stata molto lenta. L'Italia ha adottato la Legge 18 aprile 2005, n. 62, il cui articolo 27 prevede il recupero degli aiuti accordati alle municipalizzate, secondo la decisione della Commissione. Tuttavia, ai beneficiari è consentito di rimborsare a rate, su un periodo di 24 mesi. Tale norma è stata applicata con una decisione presa dall'Agenzia delle Entrate il 1o giugno 2005. |
| --- | --- |

14.

La procedura di recupero è stata molto lenta. L'Italia ha adottato la Legge 18 aprile 2005, n. 62, il cui articolo 27 prevede il recupero degli aiuti accordati alle municipalizzate, secondo la decisione della Commissione. Tuttavia, ai beneficiari è consentito di rimborsare a rate, su un periodo di 24 mesi. Tale norma è stata applicata con una decisione presa dall'Agenzia delle Entrate il 1o giugno 2005.

| 15. | AEM Torino è una delle cosiddette “aziende municipalizzate” ed è attiva in particolare nel settore dell'energia. Sulla base di quanto indicato nel suo intervento nel caso T 297/02 Acea c. Commissione essa ha beneficiato degli aiuti di cui alla decisione della Commissione del 5 giugno 2002, sia godendo delle esenzioni fiscali negli anni 1997, 1998 e 1999, sia ferendo dei prestiti agevolati. AEM Torino ha fornito le informazioni previste dalle procedure ordinarie di valutazione e riscossione delle imposte, in seguito alla decisione dell'Agenzia delle Entrate. AEM Torino dovrebbe pagare la somma accertata di aiuti illegali entro 60 giorni dalla comunicazione dei risultati della valutazione che, secondo le informazioni inviate dalle autorità italiane, dovrebbe essere stata notificata dall'Agenzia delle Entrate non più tardi dell'11 gennaio 2006. |
| --- | --- |

15.

AEM Torino è una delle cosiddette “aziende municipalizzate” ed è attiva in particolare nel settore dell'energia. Sulla base di quanto indicato nel suo intervento nel caso T 297/02 Acea c. Commissione essa ha beneficiato degli aiuti di cui alla decisione della Commissione del 5 giugno 2002, sia godendo delle esenzioni fiscali negli anni 1997, 1998 e 1999, sia ferendo dei prestiti agevolati. AEM Torino ha fornito le informazioni previste dalle procedure ordinarie di valutazione e riscossione delle imposte, in seguito alla decisione dell'Agenzia delle Entrate. AEM Torino dovrebbe pagare la somma accertata di aiuti illegali entro 60 giorni dalla comunicazione dei risultati della valutazione che, secondo le informazioni inviate dalle autorità italiane, dovrebbe essere stata notificata dall'Agenzia delle Entrate non più tardi dell'11 gennaio 2006.

| 16. | Secondo le informazioni inviate dalle autorità italiane AEM Torino invece non avrebbe beneficiato di prestiti da parte della Cassa Depositi e Prestiti. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Secondo le informazioni inviate dalle autorità italiane AEM Torino invece non avrebbe beneficiato di prestiti da parte della Cassa Depositi e Prestiti.

| 17. | La procedura di recupero, nella sua forma attuale, rischia di non essere immediata ed efficace come dovrebbe essere in base all'articolo 14, paragrafo 3, del regolamento n. 659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

17.

La procedura di recupero, nella sua forma attuale, rischia di non essere immediata ed efficace come dovrebbe essere in base all'articolo 14, paragrafo 3, del regolamento n. 659/1999.

| 18. | Per il recupero possono essere necessari fino a 24 mesi. Non è chiaro se gli interessi saranno inclusi nel calcolo delle somme da recuperare. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Per il recupero possono essere necessari fino a 24 mesi. Non è chiaro se gli interessi saranno inclusi nel calcolo delle somme da recuperare.

| 19. | Inoltre, nessun aiuto è stato recuperato fino ad ora. L'Italia non è in grado di assicurare in che data avrà luogo il recupero, né se esso sarà completo o incompleto (senza interessi) e in varie rate (durante i 24 mesi). |
| --- | --- |

19.

Inoltre, nessun aiuto è stato recuperato fino ad ora. L'Italia non è in grado di assicurare in che data avrà luogo il recupero, né se esso sarà completo o incompleto (senza interessi) e in varie rate (durante i 24 mesi).

| 20. | Poiché la Commissione non può controllare il cumulo tra gli aiuti illegali ricevuti in passato secondo il programma italiano per le municipalizzate e i nuovi aiuti in esame, è stato chiesto all'Italia di assicurare che tale effetto sia evitato prendendo l'impegno di pagare l'aiuto per i costi non recuperabili solo dopo il recupero delle somme versate illegalmente. L'Italia ha rifiutato. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Poiché la Commissione non può controllare il cumulo tra gli aiuti illegali ricevuti in passato secondo il programma italiano per le municipalizzate e i nuovi aiuti in esame, è stato chiesto all'Italia di assicurare che tale effetto sia evitato prendendo l'impegno di pagare l'aiuto per i costi non recuperabili solo dopo il recupero delle somme versate illegalmente. L'Italia ha rifiutato.

VALUTAZIONE

Legittimità dell'aiuto

| 21. | Le autorità italiane hanno notificato la misura, secondo le condizioni fissate all'articolo 88, paragrafo 2, del trattato CE. La misura contiene una clausola sospensiva. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Le autorità italiane hanno notificato la misura, secondo le condizioni fissate all'articolo 88, paragrafo 2, del trattato CE. La misura contiene una clausola sospensiva.

Sussistenza di un aiuto

| 22. | La misura riguarda le risorse statali. È selettiva e va a profitto di una sola impresa. La società è attiva in un settore — il mercato dell'elettricità — dove sono presenti notevoli scambi commerciali. La misura falsa o minaccia di falsare la concorrenza. Tutte le condizioni per l'esistenza di un aiuto fissate all'articolo 87, paragrafo 1, del trattato CE sono rispettate. |
| --- | --- |

22.

La misura riguarda le risorse statali. È selettiva e va a profitto di una sola impresa. La società è attiva in un settore — il mercato dell'elettricità — dove sono presenti notevoli scambi commerciali. La misura falsa o minaccia di falsare la concorrenza. Tutte le condizioni per l'esistenza di un aiuto fissate all'articolo 87, paragrafo 1, del trattato CE sono rispettate.

Compatibilità

| 23. | La Commissione ha analizzato la compatibilità della misura con le norme relative agli aiuti di Stato alla luce della comunicazione della Commissione relativa alla metodologia per analizzare gli aiuti di Stato collegati ai costi non recuperabili (8) (in seguito denominata “la metodologia”). |
| --- | --- |

23.

La Commissione ha analizzato la compatibilità della misura con le norme relative agli aiuti di Stato alla luce della comunicazione della Commissione relativa alla metodologia per analizzare gli aiuti di Stato collegati ai costi non recuperabili (8) (in seguito denominata “la metodologia”).

| 24. | Anzitutto, il paragrafo 3 della comunicazione definisce nel dettaglio la natura dei costi non recuperabili quali impegni e garanzie di gestione che non possono più essere adempiuti a causa delle disposizioni della direttiva 96/92/CE del 19 dicembre 1996. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Anzitutto, il paragrafo 3 della comunicazione definisce nel dettaglio la natura dei costi non recuperabili quali impegni e garanzie di gestione che non possono più essere adempiuti a causa delle disposizioni della direttiva 96/92/CE del 19 dicembre 1996.

| 25. | I costi afferenti alla costruzione di impianti di generazione antieconomici nel periodo precedente la liberalizzazione del mercato corrispondono ad una categoria tipica di costi non recuperabili. La Commissione ha esaminato e autorizzato una serie di casi rientranti in questa fattispecie (9). |
| --- | --- |

25.

I costi afferenti alla costruzione di impianti di generazione antieconomici nel periodo precedente la liberalizzazione del mercato corrispondono ad una categoria tipica di costi non recuperabili. La Commissione ha esaminato e autorizzato una serie di casi rientranti in questa fattispecie (9).

| 26. | I costi non recuperabili previsti dal regime rientrano quindi nella definizione di cui al paragrafo 3 della comunicazione della Commissione. |
| --- | --- |

26.

I costi non recuperabili previsti dal regime rientrano quindi nella definizione di cui al paragrafo 3 della comunicazione della Commissione.

| 27. | La Commissione prende nota dei seguenti aspetti:






  (a) | Gli impianti in questione sono stati costruiti prima del 19 febbraio 1997. |
| --- | --- | --- |

27.

La Commissione prende nota dei seguenti aspetti:

(a)

Gli impianti in questione sono stati costruiti prima del 19 febbraio 1997.

| (b) | Le garanzie di gestione che hanno reso possibile la costruzione di detti impianti trovano fondamento nelle disposizioni giuridiche e contrattuali da cui risultano — debitamente accertate dall'autorità nazionale di regolamentazione su richiesta del governo italiano — e nel contesto regolamentare in cui si iscrivevano al momento della loro assunzione (Decreto legislativo n. 79/99). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Le garanzie di gestione che hanno reso possibile la costruzione di detti impianti trovano fondamento nelle disposizioni giuridiche e contrattuali da cui risultano — debitamente accertate dall'autorità nazionale di regolamentazione su richiesta del governo italiano — e nel contesto regolamentare in cui si iscrivevano al momento della loro assunzione (Decreto legislativo n. 79/99).

| (c) | Gli investimenti richiesti sono notevoli e comportano forti perdite. Tutto ciò è stato controllato dalle autorità italiane individualmente per ciascuna società. Le società che non sono state interessate in modo significativo non hanno avuto diritto alla compensazione. La valutazione d'impatto dei costi non recuperabili è stata valutata a livello dei gruppi consolidati. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Gli investimenti richiesti sono notevoli e comportano forti perdite. Tutto ciò è stato controllato dalle autorità italiane individualmente per ciascuna società. Le società che non sono state interessate in modo significativo non hanno avuto diritto alla compensazione. La valutazione d'impatto dei costi non recuperabili è stata valutata a livello dei gruppi consolidati.

| (d) | Gli investimenti effettuati dai beneficiari sono irrevocabili. Infatti, non c'è altro modo di recuperare un investimento in un impianto di generazione di energia che di farlo funzionare o di venderlo a un prezzo che non superi il reddito che l'impianto può generare vendendo l'elettricità sul mercato. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Gli investimenti effettuati dai beneficiari sono irrevocabili. Infatti, non c'è altro modo di recuperare un investimento in un impianto di generazione di energia che di farlo funzionare o di venderlo a un prezzo che non superi il reddito che l'impianto può generare vendendo l'elettricità sul mercato.

| (e) | I costi non recuperabili sono collegati agli investimenti in impianti inefficienti. Non sono collegati ad accordi tra le due parti. È quindi irrilevante in questo caso specifico controllare se i costi non recuperabili derivano da garanzie che legano due società appartenenti allo stesso gruppo. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

I costi non recuperabili sono collegati agli investimenti in impianti inefficienti. Non sono collegati ad accordi tra le due parti. È quindi irrilevante in questo caso specifico controllare se i costi non recuperabili derivano da garanzie che legano due società appartenenti allo stesso gruppo.

| (f) | I costi non recuperabili sono costi economici corrispondenti alla realtà delle somme investite, pagate o da pagare in virtù di impegni o garanzie esplicite. La formula di calcolo esclude valutazioni forfettarie e i parametri rispecchiano le variabili economiche e la loro evoluzione nel tempo. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

I costi non recuperabili sono costi economici corrispondenti alla realtà delle somme investite, pagate o da pagare in virtù di impegni o garanzie esplicite. La formula di calcolo esclude valutazioni forfettarie e i parametri rispecchiano le variabili economiche e la loro evoluzione nel tempo.

| (g) | I costi non recuperabili devono essere al netto dei proventi, utili o plusvalenze connessi agli impegni o garanzie da cui risultano. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

I costi non recuperabili devono essere al netto dei proventi, utili o plusvalenze connessi agli impegni o garanzie da cui risultano.

| (h) | I costi non recuperabili sono valutati al netto di qualsiasi aiuto versato o da versare in relazione agli impianti cui si riferiscono. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

I costi non recuperabili sono valutati al netto di qualsiasi aiuto versato o da versare in relazione agli impianti cui si riferiscono.

| (i) | I costi non recuperabili tengono conto dell'andamento effettivo nel tempo delle condizioni economiche e concorrenziali. In realtà, il valore delle reintegrazioni effettive per i costi non recuperabili collegati a impianti di produzione è dato dalla differenza fra il totale dei costi di produzione (variabili e fissi) e i ricavi ottenuti dall'energia elettrica ceduta al mercato, ed è pertanto indicizzato direttamente sui prezzi dell'elettricità. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

I costi non recuperabili tengono conto dell'andamento effettivo nel tempo delle condizioni economiche e concorrenziali. In realtà, il valore delle reintegrazioni effettive per i costi non recuperabili collegati a impianti di produzione è dato dalla differenza fra il totale dei costi di produzione (variabili e fissi) e i ricavi ottenuti dall'energia elettrica ceduta al mercato, ed è pertanto indicizzato direttamente sui prezzi dell'elettricità.

| (j) | Gli investimenti non sono stati completamente ammortizzati prima della liberalizzazione del mercato indotta dal recepimento della direttiva 96/92/CE. |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Gli investimenti non sono stati completamente ammortizzati prima della liberalizzazione del mercato indotta dal recepimento della direttiva 96/92/CE.

| (k) | Le compensazioni non superano il minimo necessario atto a consentire alle imprese interessate di continuare a onorare o a far rispettare i passati impegni o garanzie. È pratica costante della Commissione nei casi di costi non recuperabili relativi a impianti antieconomici, considerare che le compensazioni debbano calcolarsi per differenza fra i costi inevitabili di esercizio dell'impianto e la parte dei ricavi da quello realizzati che può essere utilizzata a copertura dei costi inevitabili, ovvero i ricavi al netto dei costi evitabili di impianto. |
| --- | --- |

(k)

Le compensazioni non superano il minimo necessario atto a consentire alle imprese interessate di continuare a onorare o a far rispettare i passati impegni o garanzie. È pratica costante della Commissione nei casi di costi non recuperabili relativi a impianti antieconomici, considerare che le compensazioni debbano calcolarsi per differenza fra i costi inevitabili di esercizio dell'impianto e la parte dei ricavi da quello realizzati che può essere utilizzata a copertura dei costi inevitabili, ovvero i ricavi al netto dei costi evitabili di impianto.

| 28. | I costi considerati per compensazione sono limitati al 31.12.2003. Si tratta di una durata più breve rispetto a quella permessa dalla comunicazione della Commissione (fino al 2003 invece del 2006). La misura è conforme ai punti da 3.1 a 3.12 della metodologia. I costi non recuperabili interessati sono quindi ammissibili. |
| --- | --- |

28.

I costi considerati per compensazione sono limitati al 31.12.2003. Si tratta di una durata più breve rispetto a quella permessa dalla comunicazione della Commissione (fino al 2003 invece del 2006). La misura è conforme ai punti da 3.1 a 3.12 della metodologia. I costi non recuperabili interessati sono quindi ammissibili.

| 29. | La Commissione prende nota dei seguenti punti per quanto riguarda le compensazioni che saranno versate:






  (a) | L'ammontare massimo delle compensazioni è stato calcolato sulla base di impianti chiaramente determinati e isolati. Le compensazioni effettivamente versate non supereranno questo importo massimo. |
| --- | --- | --- |

29.

La Commissione prende nota dei seguenti punti per quanto riguarda le compensazioni che saranno versate:

(a)

L'ammontare massimo delle compensazioni è stato calcolato sulla base di impianti chiaramente determinati e isolati. Le compensazioni effettivamente versate non supereranno questo importo massimo.

| (b) | È stato tenuto conto dello sviluppo della concorrenza. In particolare, la formula per il calcolo delle compensazioni è direttamente legata ai prezzi dell'energia elettrica effettivi in tutto il periodo considerato (2000-2003). La Commissione ritiene che i prezzi considerati in queste formule sono compatibili con la necessità di non scoraggiare nuovi ingressi. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

È stato tenuto conto dello sviluppo della concorrenza. In particolare, la formula per il calcolo delle compensazioni è direttamente legata ai prezzi dell'energia elettrica effettivi in tutto il periodo considerato (2000-2003). La Commissione ritiene che i prezzi considerati in queste formule sono compatibili con la necessità di non scoraggiare nuovi ingressi.

| (c) | L'Italia si è impegnata a fornire una relazione annuale sull'applicazione di questo caso. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

L'Italia si è impegnata a fornire una relazione annuale sull'applicazione di questo caso.

| (d) | Sebbene il sistema italiano non presenti carattere di degressività, il requisito non è obbligatorio. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Sebbene il sistema italiano non presenti carattere di degressività, il requisito non è obbligatorio.

| (e) | L'importo massimo degli aiuti che possono essere versati a un'impresa, le modalità precise per il loro calcolo e finanziamento e la durata massima del periodo per il quale possono essere versati devono essere chiaramente specificati a priori. Si tiene conto degli aumenti di produttività nel calcolo del prezzo dell'elettricità ogni anno. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

L'importo massimo degli aiuti che possono essere versati a un'impresa, le modalità precise per il loro calcolo e finanziamento e la durata massima del periodo per il quale possono essere versati devono essere chiaramente specificati a priori. Si tiene conto degli aumenti di produttività nel calcolo del prezzo dell'elettricità ogni anno.

| 30. | Le compensazioni che saranno versate sono quindi compatibili con i punti da 4.1 a 4.6 della metodologia. |
| --- | --- |

30.

Le compensazioni che saranno versate sono quindi compatibili con i punti da 4.1 a 4.6 della metodologia.

Cumulo e applicazione della giurisprudenza Deggendorf

| 31. | Nella sua sentenza del 15 maggio 1997, la Corte di giustizia ha stabilito che: “quando la Commissione esamina la compatibilità di un aiuto con il mercato comune, deve prendere in considerazione tutti gli elementi pertinenti, ivi compreso, eventualmente, il contesto già esaminato in una decisione precedente, nonché gli obblighi che tale decisione precedente abbia potuto imporre ad uno Stato membro”. Secondo la Corte di giustizia i nuovi aiuti non sono compatibili con il mercato comune fino a che non sono stati restituiti eventuali aiuti ricevuti in passato in modo illegittimo poiché l'effetto cumulativo degli aiuti è di distorcere in maniera significativa la concorrenza nel mercato comune (Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbG (TWD)/Commissione, C-355/95P, ECR I-2549, paragrafi 25-26). |
| --- | --- |

31.

Nella sua sentenza del 15 maggio 1997, la Corte di giustizia ha stabilito che: “quando la Commissione esamina la compatibilità di un aiuto con il mercato comune, deve prendere in considerazione tutti gli elementi pertinenti, ivi compreso, eventualmente, il contesto già esaminato in una decisione precedente, nonché gli obblighi che tale decisione precedente abbia potuto imporre ad uno Stato membro”. Secondo la Corte di giustizia i nuovi aiuti non sono compatibili con il mercato comune fino a che non sono stati restituiti eventuali aiuti ricevuti in passato in modo illegittimo poiché l'effetto cumulativo degli aiuti è di distorcere in maniera significativa la concorrenza nel mercato comune (Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbG (TWD)/Commissione, C-355/95P, ECR I-2549, paragrafi 25-26).

| 32. | Quindi, in applicazione della giurisprudenza Deggendorf, la Commissione valuta la possibilità di nuovi aiuti tenendo conto del fatto che il beneficiario dei nuovi aiuti abbia restituito completamente qualunque aiuto precedente che debba essere recuperato in seguito ad una decisione negativa presa dalla Commissione. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Quindi, in applicazione della giurisprudenza Deggendorf, la Commissione valuta la possibilità di nuovi aiuti tenendo conto del fatto che il beneficiario dei nuovi aiuti abbia restituito completamente qualunque aiuto precedente che debba essere recuperato in seguito ad una decisione negativa presa dalla Commissione.

| 33. | Applicando il principio fissato dalla giurisprudenza Deggendorf al caso attuale, la Commissione osserva che: a) l'AEM di Torino ha beneficiato di aiuti precedenti, in particolare gli aiuti accordati alle aziende municipalizzate (si vedano i precedenti paragrafi da 12 a 20), da recuperare secondo la decisione della Commissione del 5 giugno 2002; e b) le autorità italiane non hanno rispettato ancora gli obblighi relativi al recupero delle somme di cui alla decisione della Commissione del 5 giugno 2002. È vero che quella decisione riguardava un regime, ma ordinava altresì di recuperare l'aiuto illegale e incompatibile attribuito sulla base di quel regime. Inoltre AEM Torino ha espressamente ammesso di aver beneficiato del regime e non vi sono motivi per ritenere che, nel suo caso specifico, le norme non costituissero aiuti, o costituissero aiuti esistenti o che siano state dichiarate compatibili con il mercato comune. |
| --- | --- |

33.

Applicando il principio fissato dalla giurisprudenza Deggendorf al caso attuale, la Commissione osserva che: a) l'AEM di Torino ha beneficiato di aiuti precedenti, in particolare gli aiuti accordati alle aziende municipalizzate (si vedano i precedenti paragrafi da 12 a 20), da recuperare secondo la decisione della Commissione del 5 giugno 2002; e b) le autorità italiane non hanno rispettato ancora gli obblighi relativi al recupero delle somme di cui alla decisione della Commissione del 5 giugno 2002. È vero che quella decisione riguardava un regime, ma ordinava altresì di recuperare l'aiuto illegale e incompatibile attribuito sulla base di quel regime. Inoltre AEM Torino ha espressamente ammesso di aver beneficiato del regime e non vi sono motivi per ritenere che, nel suo caso specifico, le norme non costituissero aiuti, o costituissero aiuti esistenti o che siano state dichiarate compatibili con il mercato comune.

| 34. | Dopo quasi quattro anni dall'adozione della decisione del 5 giugno 2002 nel caso C 27/99 (ex NN 69/98), le autorità italiane non hanno ancora recuperato gli aiuti illegittimi. Esse hanno informato la Commissione che il processo di recupero è in corso mediante l'adozione e l'attuazione di misure amministrative adeguate. |
| --- | --- |

34.

Dopo quasi quattro anni dall'adozione della decisione del 5 giugno 2002 nel caso C 27/99 (ex NN 69/98), le autorità italiane non hanno ancora recuperato gli aiuti illegittimi. Esse hanno informato la Commissione che il processo di recupero è in corso mediante l'adozione e l'attuazione di misure amministrative adeguate.

| 35. | In particolare hanno indicato che AEM Torino ha presentato una dichiarazione all'Agenzia delle Entrate con la quale si impegna a pagare le somme che l'Agenzia indicherà. Tuttavia, non sono stati in grado di indicare:






  — | l'ammontare che AEM Torino deve restituire nel processo di recupero; |
| --- | --- | --- |

35.

In particolare hanno indicato che AEM Torino ha presentato una dichiarazione all'Agenzia delle Entrate con la quale si impegna a pagare le somme che l'Agenzia indicherà. Tuttavia, non sono stati in grado di indicare:

—

l'ammontare che AEM Torino deve restituire nel processo di recupero;

| — | le condizioni di pagamento: l'Italia indica che la società dovrebbe restituire entro l'11 marzo 2006, ma non ha fornito alcuna assicurazione che il pagamento sia completo (compresi gli interessi) e in una rata (non utilizzando la proroga di 24 mesi prevista nella Legge 18 aprile 2005, n. 62). |
| --- | --- |

—

le condizioni di pagamento: l'Italia indica che la società dovrebbe restituire entro l'11 marzo 2006, ma non ha fornito alcuna assicurazione che il pagamento sia completo (compresi gli interessi) e in una rata (non utilizzando la proroga di 24 mesi prevista nella Legge 18 aprile 2005, n. 62).

| 36. | Per concludere, l'Italia non ha chiarito se sia già stato recuperato l'aiuto precedente di cui verosimilmente ha fruito AEM Torino. Sulla base delle informazioni di cui sopra si può dedurre che AEM Torino può aver ricevuto e non ancora rimborsato talune somme di aiuto nell'ambito di regimi di aiuto incompatibili esaminati nel caso C 27/99 (ex NN 69/98). |
| --- | --- |

36.

Per concludere, l'Italia non ha chiarito se sia già stato recuperato l'aiuto precedente di cui verosimilmente ha fruito AEM Torino. Sulla base delle informazioni di cui sopra si può dedurre che AEM Torino può aver ricevuto e non ancora rimborsato talune somme di aiuto nell'ambito di regimi di aiuto incompatibili esaminati nel caso C 27/99 (ex NN 69/98).

| 37. | La Commissione non è in grado di determinare l'ammontare degli aiuti che AEM Torino ha già ricevuto anteriormente ai nuovi aiuti in esame e che ancora devono essere restituiti e non può quindi valutare l'effetto cumulativo dei “vecchi” e “nuovi” aiuti destinati ad AEM Torino e il conseguente impatto di distorsione del mercato comune. |
| --- | --- |

37.

La Commissione non è in grado di determinare l'ammontare degli aiuti che AEM Torino ha già ricevuto anteriormente ai nuovi aiuti in esame e che ancora devono essere restituiti e non può quindi valutare l'effetto cumulativo dei “vecchi” e “nuovi” aiuti destinati ad AEM Torino e il conseguente impatto di distorsione del mercato comune.

| 38. | Secondo la giurisprudenza Deggendorf la Commissione deve tener conto delle circostanze già esaminate in una decisione precedente, nonché gli obblighi che tale decisione precedente abbia potuto imporre ad uno Stato membro e non può decidere sulla compatibilità di nuovi aiuti rispetto al mercato comune fino a che i precedenti aiuti detenuti illegittimamente non siano stati restituiti. |
| --- | --- |

38.

Secondo la giurisprudenza Deggendorf la Commissione deve tener conto delle circostanze già esaminate in una decisione precedente, nonché gli obblighi che tale decisione precedente abbia potuto imporre ad uno Stato membro e non può decidere sulla compatibilità di nuovi aiuti rispetto al mercato comune fino a che i precedenti aiuti detenuti illegittimamente non siano stati restituiti.

| 39. | Inoltre, come è stato chiaramente indicato alle autorità italiane, gli aiuti per il rimborso di stranded costs non possono essere cumulati con altri aiuti. |
| --- | --- |

39.

Inoltre, come è stato chiaramente indicato alle autorità italiane, gli aiuti per il rimborso di stranded costs non possono essere cumulati con altri aiuti.

| 40. | Solo un impegno che assicurava che il pagamento dei nuovi aiuti avrebbe seguito il totale rimborso dei precedenti aiuti avrebbe potuto evitare qualunque rischio di effetto cumulativo delle due misure e qualunque distorsione della competizione, secondo i principi fissati dalla Corte di giustizia nella giurisprudenza Deggendorf. |
| --- | --- |

40.

Solo un impegno che assicurava che il pagamento dei nuovi aiuti avrebbe seguito il totale rimborso dei precedenti aiuti avrebbe potuto evitare qualunque rischio di effetto cumulativo delle due misure e qualunque distorsione della competizione, secondo i principi fissati dalla Corte di giustizia nella giurisprudenza Deggendorf.

| 41. | L'Italia è stata invitata ripetutamente a prendere tale impegno, ma ha rifiutato. |
| --- | --- |

41.

L'Italia è stata invitata ripetutamente a prendere tale impegno, ma ha rifiutato.

| 42. | L'effetto cumulativo dei due aiuti è invece presente e non può essere valutato dalla Commissione. Perciò, in questa fase, l'aiuto notificato non può essere dichiarato compatibile con il mercato comune. |
| --- | --- |

42.

L'effetto cumulativo dei due aiuti è invece presente e non può essere valutato dalla Commissione. Perciò, in questa fase, l'aiuto notificato non può essere dichiarato compatibile con il mercato comune.

CONCLUSIONI

| 43. | Tenuto conto di quanto precede, la Commissione invita l'Italia a presentare, nell'ambito della procedura di cui all'articolo 88, paragrafo 2, del trattato CE, le proprie osservazioni e fornire tutte le informazioni utili ai fini della valutazione della misura, entro un mese dalla data di ricezione della presente. Essa chiede alle autorità italiane di trasmettere immediatamente una copia della presente lettera al beneficiario potenziale dell'aiuto. |
| --- | --- |

43.

Tenuto conto di quanto precede, la Commissione invita l'Italia a presentare, nell'ambito della procedura di cui all'articolo 88, paragrafo 2, del trattato CE, le proprie osservazioni e fornire tutte le informazioni utili ai fini della valutazione della misura, entro un mese dalla data di ricezione della presente. Essa chiede alle autorità italiane di trasmettere immediatamente una copia della presente lettera al beneficiario potenziale dell'aiuto.

| 44. | La Commissione richiama l'attenzione delle autorità italiane sull'articolo 88, paragrafo 3, del trattato CE, che ha effetto sospensivo e sull'articolo 14 del regolamento (CE) n. 659/1999 del Consiglio, che stabilisce che ogni aiuto illegale può formare oggetto di recupero presso il beneficiario. |
| --- | --- |

44.

La Commissione richiama l'attenzione delle autorità italiane sull'articolo 88, paragrafo 3, del trattato CE, che ha effetto sospensivo e sull'articolo 14 del regolamento (CE) n. 659/1999 del Consiglio, che stabilisce che ogni aiuto illegale può formare oggetto di recupero presso il beneficiario.

| 45. | La Commissione comunica all'Italia che informerà gli interessati attraverso la pubblicazione della presente lettera e di una sintesi della stessa nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea. Informerà inoltre gli interessati nei paesi EFTA firmatari dell'accordo SEE attraverso la pubblicazione di un avviso nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea e informerà infine l'autorità di vigilanza EFTA inviandole copia della presente. Tutti gli interessati saranno invitati a presentare osservazioni entro un mese dalla data della pubblicazione.’ |
| --- | --- |

45.

La Commissione comunica all'Italia che informerà gli interessati attraverso la pubblicazione della presente lettera e di una sintesi della stessa nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea. Informerà inoltre gli interessati nei paesi EFTA firmatari dell'accordo SEE attraverso la pubblicazione di un avviso nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea e informerà infine l'autorità di vigilanza EFTA inviandole copia della presente. Tutti gli interessati saranno invitati a presentare osservazioni entro un mese dalla data della pubblicazione.’

---

(1)  See Commission decision of 1 December 2004, on case N 490/00, in particular on the ‘stranded impianti’.

1

(2)  Decision of 5 June 2002 on case State aid C 27/99 (ex NN 69/98), published in 2003/193/EC, OJ L 77, 24.3.2003, p. 21.

2

(3)  Commission letter SG (2001) D/290869 of 6 August 2001.

3

(4)  Lettera della Commissione SG (2001) D/290869 del 6.8.2001.

4

(5)  Si veda la decisione della Commissione dell'1.12.2004, sul caso N 490/00, in particolare gli “standed impianti”.

5

(6)  2003/193/CE, GU L 77 del 24.3.2003, pag. 21

6

(7)  Ai sensi dell'articolo 3 della decisione della Commissione l'Italia deve adottare tutti i provvedimenti necessari per recuperare presso i beneficiari gli aiuti illegittimi erogati.

7

(8)  Adottata dalla Commission il 26.7.2001. Disponibile sul sito web della Direzione Generale della Concorrenza della Commissione al seguente indirizzo:

8

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/legislation/stranded_costs/pt.pdf.

Comunicata agli Stati membri con lettera SG(2001) D/290869 del 6.8.2001.

(9)  Oltre al caso N 490/00 citato nella precedente nota n. 2, si veda in particolare il caso NN49/99 — Spagna — GU C 268 del 22.9.2001, pag. 7, e il caso N 133/01 — Grecia — GU C 9 del 15.1.2003, pag. 6.

9

---

| 17.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4195 — Inchcape/Lind)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 116/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 4 May 2006 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Inchcape plc (‘Inchcape’, UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Lind Automotive Group Ltd (‘Lind, UK’) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 4 May 2006 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Inchcape plc (‘Inchcape’, UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Lind Automotive Group Ltd (‘Lind, UK’) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | Inchcape: retail and servicing of motor vehicles, financial services, vehicle fleet solutions, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

Inchcape: retail and servicing of motor vehicles, financial services, vehicle fleet solutions,

| — | Lind: retail and servicing of motor vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lind: retail and servicing of motor vehicles.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4195 — Inchcape/Lind, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4195 — Inchcape/Lind, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

---

European Data Protection Supervisor

| 17.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/8

---

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability (COM (2005) 490 final)

(2006/C 116/04)

THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular its Article 286,

Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular its Article 8,

Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data,

Having regard to the request for an opinion in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

I.   PRELIMINARY REMARKS

| 1. | The Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability has been sent by the Commission to the EDPS by letter of 12 October 2005. The EDPS understands this letter as a request to advise Community institutions and bodies, as foreseen in Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. According to the EDPS, the present opinion should be mentioned in the preamble of the Framework Decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability has been sent by the Commission to the EDPS by letter of 12 October 2005. The EDPS understands this letter as a request to advise Community institutions and bodies, as foreseen in Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. According to the EDPS, the present opinion should be mentioned in the preamble of the Framework Decision.

| 2. | The nature of this opinion has to be seen in the context described under II. As indicated under II, it is far from obvious that the present proposal — or the approach to availability taken by the proposal — will eventually lead to the adoption of a legal instrument. Other approaches are advocated by a considerable number of Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The nature of this opinion has to be seen in the context described under II. As indicated under II, it is far from obvious that the present proposal — or the approach to availability taken by the proposal — will eventually lead to the adoption of a legal instrument. Other approaches are advocated by a considerable number of Member States.

| 3. | However, it is obvious that the subject of the availability of law enforcement information across the internal borders — or, more widely, the exchange of this information — is high on the agenda of the Member States, inside as well as outside the Council, and within the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

However, it is obvious that the subject of the availability of law enforcement information across the internal borders — or, more widely, the exchange of this information — is high on the agenda of the Member States, inside as well as outside the Council, and within the European Parliament.

| 4. | It is equally obvious that this subject is highly relevant from the perspective of the protection of personal data, as the present opinion itself will illustrate. The EDPS recalls that the present proposal was presented by the Commission with a close link to the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, object of an opinion of the EDPS, presented on 19 December 2005. |
| --- | --- |

4.

It is equally obvious that this subject is highly relevant from the perspective of the protection of personal data, as the present opinion itself will illustrate. The EDPS recalls that the present proposal was presented by the Commission with a close link to the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, object of an opinion of the EDPS, presented on 19 December 2005.

| 5. | The EDPS will use this occasion to present in this opinion some general and more fundamental points of view on the subject of exchange of law enforcement information and on the approaches for regulating this subject. By presenting this opinion, the EDPS envisages ensuring that the perspective of data protection will be duly taken into account in future discussions on the subject. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EDPS will use this occasion to present in this opinion some general and more fundamental points of view on the subject of exchange of law enforcement information and on the approaches for regulating this subject. By presenting this opinion, the EDPS envisages ensuring that the perspective of data protection will be duly taken into account in future discussions on the subject.

| 6. | The EDPS will be available for further consultation at a later stage, following relevant developments in the legislative process on this proposal as well as on other related proposals. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The EDPS will be available for further consultation at a later stage, following relevant developments in the legislative process on this proposal as well as on other related proposals.

II.   THE PROPOSAL IN ITS CONTEXT

| 7. | The principle of availability has been introduced as an important new principle of law in the Hague Programme. It entails that information needed for the fight against crime should cross the internal borders of the EU without obstacles. The objective of the present proposal is to implement this principle in a binding legal instrument. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The principle of availability has been introduced as an important new principle of law in the Hague Programme. It entails that information needed for the fight against crime should cross the internal borders of the EU without obstacles. The objective of the present proposal is to implement this principle in a binding legal instrument.

| 8. | The exchange of police information between different countries is a popular subject for legislators, within and outside the framework of the EU. Recently, the following initiatives drew the attention of the EDPS. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The exchange of police information between different countries is a popular subject for legislators, within and outside the framework of the EU. Recently, the following initiatives drew the attention of the EDPS.

| 9. | In the first place, on 4 June 2004 Sweden proposed a Framework Decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union. On this proposal, the Council has reached an agreement on a general approach in its meeting of 1 December 2005. |
| --- | --- |

9.

In the first place, on 4 June 2004 Sweden proposed a Framework Decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union. On this proposal, the Council has reached an agreement on a general approach in its meeting of 1 December 2005.

| 10. | In the second place, on 27 May 2005, seven Member States signed a Convention in Prüm (Germany) on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration. It introduces inter alia measures to improve information exchange for DNA and fingerprints. The Convention is open for any Member State of the European Union to join. The Contracting Parties aim to incorporate the provisions of the Convention into the legal framework of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

10.

In the second place, on 27 May 2005, seven Member States signed a Convention in Prüm (Germany) on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration. It introduces inter alia measures to improve information exchange for DNA and fingerprints. The Convention is open for any Member State of the European Union to join. The Contracting Parties aim to incorporate the provisions of the Convention into the legal framework of the European Union.

| 11. | In the third place, the availability of law enforcement information across the internal borders of the European Union will also be further facilitated by other legal instruments, such as the proposals regarding a Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the proposal for access for consultation to the Visa Information System (VIS) and the proposal for a Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States. In this respect, it is also useful to mention the Communication on improved effectiveness, enhanced operability and synergies among European databases in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, issued by the Commission on 25 November 2005. |
| --- | --- |

11.

In the third place, the availability of law enforcement information across the internal borders of the European Union will also be further facilitated by other legal instruments, such as the proposals regarding a Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), the proposal for access for consultation to the Visa Information System (VIS) and the proposal for a Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States. In this respect, it is also useful to mention the Communication on improved effectiveness, enhanced operability and synergies among European databases in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, issued by the Commission on 25 November 2005.

| 12. | Because all of these initiatives have been issued, it follows that the present proposal for a Framework Decision on availability should not be examined by itself, but other approaches to the exchange of law enforcement information should also be taken into account. This is even more important since it is the current tendency within the Council to give preference to other approaches to information exchange and to the concept of availability than the general approach proposed by the Commission in the present proposal. The present text of the proposal might even not be the object of discussion in the Council. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Because all of these initiatives have been issued, it follows that the present proposal for a Framework Decision on availability should not be examined by itself, but other approaches to the exchange of law enforcement information should also be taken into account. This is even more important since it is the current tendency within the Council to give preference to other approaches to information exchange and to the concept of availability than the general approach proposed by the Commission in the present proposal. The present text of the proposal might even not be the object of discussion in the Council.

| 13. | Furthermore, this proposal is closely linked to the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. The present opinion must be understood in connection with the more profound opinion on the latter Framework Decision. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Furthermore, this proposal is closely linked to the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. The present opinion must be understood in connection with the more profound opinion on the latter Framework Decision.

| 14. | In his opinion on the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data, the EDPS underlined the importance of adequate data protection as a necessary consequence of a legal instrument on availability. According to the EDPS, such a legal instrument should not be adopted without essential guarantees on data protection. |
| --- | --- |

14.

In his opinion on the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data, the EDPS underlined the importance of adequate data protection as a necessary consequence of a legal instrument on availability. According to the EDPS, such a legal instrument should not be adopted without essential guarantees on data protection.

| 15. | The EDPS takes the same position in respect of the adoption of other legal instruments that facilitate the flow of law enforcement information across the internal borders of the EU. The EDPS therefore welcomes that the Council as well as the European Parliament have dedicated priority to the aforementioned proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

15.

The EDPS takes the same position in respect of the adoption of other legal instruments that facilitate the flow of law enforcement information across the internal borders of the EU. The EDPS therefore welcomes that the Council as well as the European Parliament have dedicated priority to the aforementioned proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data.

III.   THE AVAILABILITY PRINCIPLE AS SUCH

| 16. | The availability principle is in itself a simple principle. The information that is available to certain authorities in a Member State must also be provided to equivalent authorities in other Member States. The information must be exchanged as swiftly and easily as possible between the authorities of the Member States and preferably by allowing direct online access. |
| --- | --- |

16.

The availability principle is in itself a simple principle. The information that is available to certain authorities in a Member State must also be provided to equivalent authorities in other Member States. The information must be exchanged as swiftly and easily as possible between the authorities of the Member States and preferably by allowing direct online access.

| 17. | The difficulties arise because of the environment in which the principle of availability has to be made effective:






  — | A heterogeneous organisation of the police and the judiciary in the Member States, with different checks and balances. |
| --- | --- | --- |

17.

The difficulties arise because of the environment in which the principle of availability has to be made effective:

—

A heterogeneous organisation of the police and the judiciary in the Member States, with different checks and balances.

| — | Different types of (sensitive) information are included (such as DNA or fingerprints). |
| --- | --- |

—

Different types of (sensitive) information are included (such as DNA or fingerprints).

| — | Different ways of access to relevant information for competent authorities even within Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

Different ways of access to relevant information for competent authorities even within Member States.

| — | It is difficult to ensure that information originating from another Member State will be properly interpreted due to differences in languages, in technological systems (interoperability) and in legal systems. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is difficult to ensure that information originating from another Member State will be properly interpreted due to differences in languages, in technological systems (interoperability) and in legal systems.

| — | It has to be included in the existing and extensive patchwork of legal provisions that deal with the exchange of law enforcement information between countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

It has to be included in the existing and extensive patchwork of legal provisions that deal with the exchange of law enforcement information between countries.

| 18. | Irrespective of this complex environment, it is common understanding that the principle can not work by itself. Additional measures are needed to ensure that information can effectively be found and accessed. In any case, those measures must make it easier for law enforcement authorities to find out whether law enforcement authorities in other Member States have relevant information at their disposal and where this relevant information can be found. Such additional measures could consist of interfaces that deliver direct access to all or specific data held by other Member States. The proposal for a Framework Decision on availability introduces for this reason ‘index data’, specific data that can be accessed directly across the borders. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Irrespective of this complex environment, it is common understanding that the principle can not work by itself. Additional measures are needed to ensure that information can effectively be found and accessed. In any case, those measures must make it easier for law enforcement authorities to find out whether law enforcement authorities in other Member States have relevant information at their disposal and where this relevant information can be found. Such additional measures could consist of interfaces that deliver direct access to all or specific data held by other Member States. The proposal for a Framework Decision on availability introduces for this reason ‘index data’, specific data that can be accessed directly across the borders.

| 19. | In general terms, the availability principle should facilitate the flow of information between the Member States. The internal borders will be abolished and the Member States have to allow that information available to their police authorities will increasingly become accessible for other authorities. The Member States lose competence to control the flow of information, which also results in the fact that they no longer can rely on their national legislation as a sufficient instrument for an adequate protection of the information. |
| --- | --- |

19.

In general terms, the availability principle should facilitate the flow of information between the Member States. The internal borders will be abolished and the Member States have to allow that information available to their police authorities will increasingly become accessible for other authorities. The Member States lose competence to control the flow of information, which also results in the fact that they no longer can rely on their national legislation as a sufficient instrument for an adequate protection of the information.

| 20. | It is for this reason that the proposal needs specific attention from the perspective of the protection of personal data. In the first place, information that is normally confidential and well secured must be provided to authorities in other Member States. In the second place, to make the system work index data must be established and made available to authorities in other Member States. The implementation of this principle will, as a consequence, generate more data than currently available. |
| --- | --- |

20.

It is for this reason that the proposal needs specific attention from the perspective of the protection of personal data. In the first place, information that is normally confidential and well secured must be provided to authorities in other Member States. In the second place, to make the system work index data must be established and made available to authorities in other Member States. The implementation of this principle will, as a consequence, generate more data than currently available.

IV.   MAIN ELEMENTS

Scope of the principle of availability

| 21. | First of all, it is essential to define to which kind of information the principle of availability will apply. The field of application of this principle is defined in general terms in Article 2 of the proposal, in combination with Article 1(1) and Article 3(a). The principle shall apply to information that is:






  — | existing information; |
| --- | --- | --- |

21.

First of all, it is essential to define to which kind of information the principle of availability will apply. The field of application of this principle is defined in general terms in Article 2 of the proposal, in combination with Article 1(1) and Article 3(a). The principle shall apply to information that is:

—

existing information;

| — | listed in Annex II which defines six types of information; |
| --- | --- |

—

listed in Annex II which defines six types of information;

| — | available to competent authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

available to competent authorities.

These are the three essential elements of the scope of the principle in the proposal by the Commission. The scope is further refined in Article 2. Article 2(1) limits the application of the principle of availability to the stage prior to the commencement of a prosecution, whereas Article 2(2), (3) and (4) provide some more specific restrictions.

| 22. | To understand the consequences of the proposal, a more profound analysis of the three essential elements mentioned above is needed. The first two elements of the scope are by themselves reasonably clear. The definition of ‘existing information’ is elaborated in Article 2(2) stating that the Framework Decision does not entail any obligation to collect and store information for the sole purpose of making it available, whereas the list in Annex II can not be interpreted in different ways. It is the third essential element, by itself and in combination with the first two elements that needs further clarification. |
| --- | --- |

22.

To understand the consequences of the proposal, a more profound analysis of the three essential elements mentioned above is needed. The first two elements of the scope are by themselves reasonably clear. The definition of ‘existing information’ is elaborated in Article 2(2) stating that the Framework Decision does not entail any obligation to collect and store information for the sole purpose of making it available, whereas the list in Annex II can not be interpreted in different ways. It is the third essential element, by itself and in combination with the first two elements that needs further clarification.

| 23. | The proposal does not specify whether ‘available information’ consists merely of information already controlled by competent authorities or also includes information that can be potentially obtained by these authorities. However, according to the EDPS, the proposal could be interpreted as comprising both. |
| --- | --- |

23.

The proposal does not specify whether ‘available information’ consists merely of information already controlled by competent authorities or also includes information that can be potentially obtained by these authorities. However, according to the EDPS, the proposal could be interpreted as comprising both.

| 24. | Indeed, while Article 2(2) seems to suggest a narrower scope, by specifying that the Framework Decision ‘does not entail any obligation to collect and store information [...] for the sole purpose of making it available’, Article 3(a) allows a broader interpretation, by stating that ‘information’ shall mean ‘existing information, listed in Annex II’. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Indeed, while Article 2(2) seems to suggest a narrower scope, by specifying that the Framework Decision ‘does not entail any obligation to collect and store information [...] for the sole purpose of making it available’, Article 3(a) allows a broader interpretation, by stating that ‘information’ shall mean ‘existing information, listed in Annex II’.

| 25. | Annex II mentions at least two categories of data that are commonly controlled by others than the police. The first category is vehicle registration information. In many Member States, the databases containing this information are not controlled by law enforcement authorities, even though they are regularly accessed by these authorities. Should this kind of information fall within the scope of the ‘available information’ which, according to Article 1, shall be provided to equivalent competent authorities of other Member States? The second category of data listed in Annex II to be mentioned are telephone numbers and other communications data: should these data be considered to be ‘available’ even when these data are not controlled by competent authorities, but by private companies? |
| --- | --- |

25.

Annex II mentions at least two categories of data that are commonly controlled by others than the police. The first category is vehicle registration information. In many Member States, the databases containing this information are not controlled by law enforcement authorities, even though they are regularly accessed by these authorities. Should this kind of information fall within the scope of the ‘available information’ which, according to Article 1, shall be provided to equivalent competent authorities of other Member States? The second category of data listed in Annex II to be mentioned are telephone numbers and other communications data: should these data be considered to be ‘available’ even when these data are not controlled by competent authorities, but by private companies?

| 26. | Moreover, other provisions of the proposal, and more particular Articles 3(d) and 4(1)(c) of the proposal, support the view that ‘designated authorities’ and even ‘designated parties’ may control information that is ‘available’ for ‘competent authorities’. It also follows from the text of the proposal that a ‘competent authority’ of a Member State is an authority covered by Article 29, first hyphen, of the EU-Treaty whereas any national authority can qualify as a ‘designated authority’. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Moreover, other provisions of the proposal, and more particular Articles 3(d) and 4(1)(c) of the proposal, support the view that ‘designated authorities’ and even ‘designated parties’ may control information that is ‘available’ for ‘competent authorities’. It also follows from the text of the proposal that a ‘competent authority’ of a Member State is an authority covered by Article 29, first hyphen, of the EU-Treaty whereas any national authority can qualify as a ‘designated authority’.

| 27. | According to the EDPS, application of the availability principle to information that is controlled by designated authorities and designated parties, entails the following questions:






  — | Does Article 30(1)(b) provide for a sufficient legal basis, since information has to be made available by designated authorities and designated parties and from databases that do not fall within the framework of the third pillar? |
| --- | --- | --- |

27.

According to the EDPS, application of the availability principle to information that is controlled by designated authorities and designated parties, entails the following questions:

—

Does Article 30(1)(b) provide for a sufficient legal basis, since information has to be made available by designated authorities and designated parties and from databases that do not fall within the framework of the third pillar?

| — | Will the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data apply, as is assumed e.g. in Article 8 of the proposal? |
| --- | --- |

—

Will the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data apply, as is assumed e.g. in Article 8 of the proposal?

| — | If not, is the processing in accordance with the obligations under Directive 95/46/EC? |
| --- | --- |

—

If not, is the processing in accordance with the obligations under Directive 95/46/EC?

| 28. | The implementation of such a broad principle as the ‘principle of availability’ requires a clear and precise definition of the data that shall be considered available. Therefore, the EDPS recommends:






  — | Clarifying the scope. |
| --- | --- | --- |

28.

The implementation of such a broad principle as the ‘principle of availability’ requires a clear and precise definition of the data that shall be considered available. Therefore, the EDPS recommends:

—

Clarifying the scope.

| — | As a first option, limiting the scope of the principle of availability to information controlled by competent authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

As a first option, limiting the scope of the principle of availability to information controlled by competent authorities.

| — | As a second option, in case of a broader scope, ensuring sufficient safeguards for the protection of personal data. The questions raised in point 27 hereinabove have to be taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

—

As a second option, in case of a broader scope, ensuring sufficient safeguards for the protection of personal data. The questions raised in point 27 hereinabove have to be taken into consideration.

Other issues related to the scope

| 29. | According to Article 2(1) of the proposal, the Framework Decision shall apply to the processing of information prior to the commencement of a prosecution. Its scope is more limited than the proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data that fully applies to judicial cooperation in criminal matters. |
| --- | --- |

29.

According to Article 2(1) of the proposal, the Framework Decision shall apply to the processing of information prior to the commencement of a prosecution. Its scope is more limited than the proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data that fully applies to judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

| 30. | However, according to the EDPS this limitation does not by itself limit the scope of the proposal to police cooperation. It could also include judicial cooperation in criminal matters since in a number of Member States judicial authorities also have competences on criminal investigations, before the commencement of a prosecution. However, the fact that the proposal is solely based on Article 30(1)(b) TEU seems to indicate that it only applies to police cooperation. A clarification on this aspect would be welcomed. |
| --- | --- |

30.

However, according to the EDPS this limitation does not by itself limit the scope of the proposal to police cooperation. It could also include judicial cooperation in criminal matters since in a number of Member States judicial authorities also have competences on criminal investigations, before the commencement of a prosecution. However, the fact that the proposal is solely based on Article 30(1)(b) TEU seems to indicate that it only applies to police cooperation. A clarification on this aspect would be welcomed.

| 31. | The present proposal applies to providing information to Europol whereas the proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data excludes the processing of personal data by Europol. The EDPS advises limiting the information exchange with Europol to the purposes of Europol itself, as mentioned in Article 2 of the Europol Convention and the Annex thereof. Moreover, account should be taken of the detailed rules for exchange of data with Europol, which are already laid down in several Council Acts. |
| --- | --- |

31.

The present proposal applies to providing information to Europol whereas the proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data excludes the processing of personal data by Europol. The EDPS advises limiting the information exchange with Europol to the purposes of Europol itself, as mentioned in Article 2 of the Europol Convention and the Annex thereof. Moreover, account should be taken of the detailed rules for exchange of data with Europol, which are already laid down in several Council Acts.

No new databases containing personal data

| 32. | The starting point of the proposal is that it will not lead to the construction of new databases containing personal data. To that effect, Article 2(2) is clear: it does not entail any obligation to collect and store information for the sole purpose of making it available. From the perspective of data protection, this is an important and positive element of the proposal. The EDPS recalls his opinion on the proposal for a directive on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication (1) in which he emphasised that legal obligations that lead to substantial databases run particular risks for the data subject, inter alia because of risks of illegitimate use. |
| --- | --- |

32.

The starting point of the proposal is that it will not lead to the construction of new databases containing personal data. To that effect, Article 2(2) is clear: it does not entail any obligation to collect and store information for the sole purpose of making it available. From the perspective of data protection, this is an important and positive element of the proposal. The EDPS recalls his opinion on the proposal for a directive on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication (1) in which he emphasised that legal obligations that lead to substantial databases run particular risks for the data subject, inter alia because of risks of illegitimate use.

| 33. | However:






  — | It is important to ensure that the proposal will not promote an unconditional interconnection of databases and thus a network of databases which will be hard to supervise. |
| --- | --- | --- |

33.

However:

—

It is important to ensure that the proposal will not promote an unconditional interconnection of databases and thus a network of databases which will be hard to supervise.

| — | There is an exception to the starting point mentioned above: Article 10 of the proposal which ensures that index data are available on line. Index data may contain personal data or in any case reveal their existence. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is an exception to the starting point mentioned above: Article 10 of the proposal which ensures that index data are available on line. Index data may contain personal data or in any case reveal their existence.

Direct and indirect access to information

| 34. | The proposal provides for direct and indirect access to information. Article 9 of the proposal foresees direct on line access to information contained in databases to which corresponding national authorities have direct on line access. Article 10 entails an indirect access. Index data of information that is not accessible online shall be available for online consultation by equivalent competent authorities of other Member States and Europol. When consultation of index data results in a match, this authority may issue an information demand and send it to the designated authority in order to obtain the information identified by the index data. |
| --- | --- |

34.

The proposal provides for direct and indirect access to information. Article 9 of the proposal foresees direct on line access to information contained in databases to which corresponding national authorities have direct on line access. Article 10 entails an indirect access. Index data of information that is not accessible online shall be available for online consultation by equivalent competent authorities of other Member States and Europol. When consultation of index data results in a match, this authority may issue an information demand and send it to the designated authority in order to obtain the information identified by the index data.

| 35. | Direct access does not lead to new databases, but it requires the interoperability of the databases of the equivalent competent systems within the Member States. Moreover, it will necessarily introduce a new usage of already existing databases by providing a facility to all competent authorities of the Member States which until now had only been open to national competent authorities. Direct access will automatically mean that an increased number of persons will have access to a database and therefore encompasses a growing risk of misuse. |
| --- | --- |

35.

Direct access does not lead to new databases, but it requires the interoperability of the databases of the equivalent competent systems within the Member States. Moreover, it will necessarily introduce a new usage of already existing databases by providing a facility to all competent authorities of the Member States which until now had only been open to national competent authorities. Direct access will automatically mean that an increased number of persons will have access to a database and therefore encompasses a growing risk of misuse.

| 36. | In case of direct access by a competent authority of another Member State, the designated authorities of the originating Member State have no control over the access and the further use of the data. This consequence of direct access as foreseen by the proposal has to be properly addressed, since:






  — | It seems to invalidate the powers of the designated authorities to refuse the provision of information (under Article 14). |
| --- | --- | --- |

36.

In case of direct access by a competent authority of another Member State, the designated authorities of the originating Member State have no control over the access and the further use of the data. This consequence of direct access as foreseen by the proposal has to be properly addressed, since:

—

It seems to invalidate the powers of the designated authorities to refuse the provision of information (under Article 14).

| — | It raises questions as to responsibilities for the accuracy and the keeping up to date of data, once they have been accessed. How can a designated authority of the originating Member State ensure that data are kept up to date? |
| --- | --- |

—

It raises questions as to responsibilities for the accuracy and the keeping up to date of data, once they have been accessed. How can a designated authority of the originating Member State ensure that data are kept up to date?

| — | It is not only the designated authority that is no longer capable of fulfilling all its obligations under data protection law, but also the national data protection authority of the originating Member State can no longer supervise the application of the obligations since it lacks any competence vis-a-vis law enforcement authorities of other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is not only the designated authority that is no longer capable of fulfilling all its obligations under data protection law, but also the national data protection authority of the originating Member State can no longer supervise the application of the obligations since it lacks any competence vis-a-vis law enforcement authorities of other Member States.

| — | These problems are even more predominant in case of access to databases of designated authorities and designated parties, not being law enforcement authorities (see points 25-28 of this opinion).
  This consequence of direct access is an important reason why the adoption of the present proposal should depend on the adoption of a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. One problem remains: it is difficult to see how designated authorities could refuse the provision of information under Article 14. |
| --- | --- |

—

These problems are even more predominant in case of access to databases of designated authorities and designated parties, not being law enforcement authorities (see points 25-28 of this opinion).

This consequence of direct access is an important reason why the adoption of the present proposal should depend on the adoption of a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. One problem remains: it is difficult to see how designated authorities could refuse the provision of information under Article 14.

| 37. | As concerns indirect access through index data that give information on a hit/no hit system: this is not a new phenomenon. It is the basis of the functioning of European large scale information systems, such as the Schengen Information System. The establishment of a system of index data has the advantage that it allows the originating Member States to control the exchange of information from their police files. If consultation of index data results in a match, the requesting authority may issue an information demand concerning the data subject involved. This demand can be properly assessed by the requested authority. |
| --- | --- |

37.

As concerns indirect access through index data that give information on a hit/no hit system: this is not a new phenomenon. It is the basis of the functioning of European large scale information systems, such as the Schengen Information System. The establishment of a system of index data has the advantage that it allows the originating Member States to control the exchange of information from their police files. If consultation of index data results in a match, the requesting authority may issue an information demand concerning the data subject involved. This demand can be properly assessed by the requested authority.

| 38. | Nevertheless, a proper analysis is needed since the establishment of a system of index data — in areas where those systems until now did not exist, other than the European large scale information systems — can create new risks for the data subject. The EDPS emphasises that although index data do not contain much information about the data subject, consultation of index data can lead to a highly sensitive result. It may reveal that a person is included in a police file in relation to criminal offences. |
| --- | --- |

38.

Nevertheless, a proper analysis is needed since the establishment of a system of index data — in areas where those systems until now did not exist, other than the European large scale information systems — can create new risks for the data subject. The EDPS emphasises that although index data do not contain much information about the data subject, consultation of index data can lead to a highly sensitive result. It may reveal that a person is included in a police file in relation to criminal offences.

| 39. | Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the European legislator provides for adequate rules, at least on the creation of index data, on the management of the filing systems of index data and on the adequate organisation of the access to the index data. According to the EDPS, the proposal is not satisfactory on these points. At this stage, the EDPS makes three observations:






  — | The definition of index data is unclear. It is not clear whether index data are seen as meta-data, primary keys or even both? The notion of index data needs to be clarified, as it has a direct impact on the level of data protection and the required safeguards. |
| --- | --- | --- |

39.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the European legislator provides for adequate rules, at least on the creation of index data, on the management of the filing systems of index data and on the adequate organisation of the access to the index data. According to the EDPS, the proposal is not satisfactory on these points. At this stage, the EDPS makes three observations:

—

The definition of index data is unclear. It is not clear whether index data are seen as meta-data, primary keys or even both? The notion of index data needs to be clarified, as it has a direct impact on the level of data protection and the required safeguards.

| — | The proposal should clarify the role of national contact points as regards index data. Involvement of national contact points could be necessary, in particular in cases when the interpretation of the index data requires specialised knowledge for instance in case of the possible matching of fingerprints. |
| --- | --- |

—

The proposal should clarify the role of national contact points as regards index data. Involvement of national contact points could be necessary, in particular in cases when the interpretation of the index data requires specialised knowledge for instance in case of the possible matching of fingerprints.

| — | The proposal leaves the adoption of rules necessary for the creation of index data to implementing legislation in accordance with the comitology-procedure foreseen in Article 19. Although implementing rules might be needed, the basic rules for the creation of index data should be included in the Framework Decision itself. |
| --- | --- |

—

The proposal leaves the adoption of rules necessary for the creation of index data to implementing legislation in accordance with the comitology-procedure foreseen in Article 19. Although implementing rules might be needed, the basic rules for the creation of index data should be included in the Framework Decision itself.

Prior authorisation by judicial authorities

| 40. | The information exchange shall not prevent Member States requiring prior authorisation by judicial authorities to transmit the information to the requesting authority when this information is under judicial control in the requested country. This is important since, according to a survey on police powers to exchange personal data (2), not in all Member States police can autonomously access these data. According to the EDPS, the availability principle should not undermine the obligation under national law to obtain a prior authorisation for the information, or at least establish specific rules concerning the categories of data for which prior authorisation has to be obtained, that will be applicable in all Member States. |
| --- | --- |

40.

The information exchange shall not prevent Member States requiring prior authorisation by judicial authorities to transmit the information to the requesting authority when this information is under judicial control in the requested country. This is important since, according to a survey on police powers to exchange personal data (2), not in all Member States police can autonomously access these data. According to the EDPS, the availability principle should not undermine the obligation under national law to obtain a prior authorisation for the information, or at least establish specific rules concerning the categories of data for which prior authorisation has to be obtained, that will be applicable in all Member States.

| 41. | This obligation should be interpreted in connection with Article 11(2) of the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data that also envisages that the transmitting Member State has a say in the further use of the data in the Member State to which the data have been transmitted. The EDPS notes the importance of this principle, which is needed to ensure that availability will not lead to circumventing restrictive national legislation on the further use of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

41.

This obligation should be interpreted in connection with Article 11(2) of the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data that also envisages that the transmitting Member State has a say in the further use of the data in the Member State to which the data have been transmitted. The EDPS notes the importance of this principle, which is needed to ensure that availability will not lead to circumventing restrictive national legislation on the further use of personal data.

Final remark

| 42. | These elements require high standards of data protection. Special attention should be given to ensure the principles of purpose limitation and further processing as well as to the accuracy and the reliability of the information that is accessed (see the opinion of the EDPS on the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data, IV.2 and IV.6). |
| --- | --- |

42.

These elements require high standards of data protection. Special attention should be given to ensure the principles of purpose limitation and further processing as well as to the accuracy and the reliability of the information that is accessed (see the opinion of the EDPS on the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data, IV.2 and IV.6).

V.   OTHER APPROACHES

Swedish proposal

| 43. | The Swedish proposal is not limited to specific types of information but covers all information and intelligence, even information and intelligence that is kept by others than competent law enforcement authorities. The proposal advances cooperation by setting time limits to answer requests for information and by abolishing discrimination between the exchange within one Member State and cross border exchange of information. It does not provide for additional measures ensuring that the information can effectively be accessed. It is for this reason understandable that the Commission was not satisfied by the Swedish proposal in itself, as an adequate instrument for availability (3). |
| --- | --- |

43.

The Swedish proposal is not limited to specific types of information but covers all information and intelligence, even information and intelligence that is kept by others than competent law enforcement authorities. The proposal advances cooperation by setting time limits to answer requests for information and by abolishing discrimination between the exchange within one Member State and cross border exchange of information. It does not provide for additional measures ensuring that the information can effectively be accessed. It is for this reason understandable that the Commission was not satisfied by the Swedish proposal in itself, as an adequate instrument for availability (3).

| 44. | The approach in the Swedish proposal has the following general implications, from the perspective of data protection:






  — | It is welcomed that the proposal is strictly limited to the processing of existing data and does not lead to any new databases, not even to ‘index data’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

44.

The approach in the Swedish proposal has the following general implications, from the perspective of data protection:

—

It is welcomed that the proposal is strictly limited to the processing of existing data and does not lead to any new databases, not even to ‘index data’.

| — | However, the absence of ‘index data’ is not by definition a positive element. Index data, if adequately secured, can facilitate a targeted and therefore less intrusive research of data with a sensitive nature. It can also allow for better filtering of requests and for better supervision. |
| --- | --- |

—

However, the absence of ‘index data’ is not by definition a positive element. Index data, if adequately secured, can facilitate a targeted and therefore less intrusive research of data with a sensitive nature. It can also allow for better filtering of requests and for better supervision.

| — | In any case, the proposal leads to an increase of the cross border exchange of personal data, with risks for the protection of personal data, inter alia because the competence of the Member States to fully control the exchanger of data is affected. It should not be adopted independently of the adoption of the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any case, the proposal leads to an increase of the cross border exchange of personal data, with risks for the protection of personal data, inter alia because the competence of the Member States to fully control the exchanger of data is affected. It should not be adopted independently of the adoption of the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data.

Prüm Convention

| 45. | The Prüm Convention takes another approach to implementing the principle of availability. Whereas the present proposal for a Framework Decision has a general approach — not providing for specific rules for the exchange of specific types of information but applicable to all types of information, in so far as they are listed in Annex II (see points 21-28 of this opinion) -, the approach of the Prüm Convention is gradual. |
| --- | --- |

45.

The Prüm Convention takes another approach to implementing the principle of availability. Whereas the present proposal for a Framework Decision has a general approach — not providing for specific rules for the exchange of specific types of information but applicable to all types of information, in so far as they are listed in Annex II (see points 21-28 of this opinion) -, the approach of the Prüm Convention is gradual.

| 46. | This approach it is sometimes called a ‘data field-by-data field approach’. It applies to specific types of information (DNA, fingerprinting data and vehicle registration data) and it lays down the obligation to take into account the specific nature of the data. The Convention lays down the obligation to open and keep DNA analysis files for the investigation of criminal offences. A similar obligation applies to fingerprinting data. As to vehicle registration data, direct access has to be given to national contact points of other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

46.

This approach it is sometimes called a ‘data field-by-data field approach’. It applies to specific types of information (DNA, fingerprinting data and vehicle registration data) and it lays down the obligation to take into account the specific nature of the data. The Convention lays down the obligation to open and keep DNA analysis files for the investigation of criminal offences. A similar obligation applies to fingerprinting data. As to vehicle registration data, direct access has to be given to national contact points of other Member States.

| 47. | The approach of the Prüm Convention gives rise to three types of observations. |
| --- | --- |

47.

The approach of the Prüm Convention gives rise to three types of observations.

| 48. | In the first place, it goes without saying that the EDPS does not endorse the process leading up to this Convention, outside the institutional framework of the European Union, and therefore without substantive involvement of the Commission. Moreover, this means no democratic control by the European Parliament and no judicial control by the Court of Justice and as a result there are less guarantees that all the (public) interests are equally balanced. This includes the perspective of data protection. In other words, the institutions of the European Union do not have the opportunity to assess — before the system is established — the impact of the policy choices on the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

48.

In the first place, it goes without saying that the EDPS does not endorse the process leading up to this Convention, outside the institutional framework of the European Union, and therefore without substantive involvement of the Commission. Moreover, this means no democratic control by the European Parliament and no judicial control by the Court of Justice and as a result there are less guarantees that all the (public) interests are equally balanced. This includes the perspective of data protection. In other words, the institutions of the European Union do not have the opportunity to assess — before the system is established — the impact of the policy choices on the protection of personal data.

| 49. | In the second place, it is obvious that some elements of the Prüm Convention are clearly more intrusive to the data subject than the proposal for a Framework Decision on availability. The Convention necessarily leads to the establishment of new databases which in itself presents risks to the protection of personal data. The necessity and proportionality of the establishment of these new databases should be demonstrated. Adequate safeguards for the protection of personal data should be provided. |
| --- | --- |

49.

In the second place, it is obvious that some elements of the Prüm Convention are clearly more intrusive to the data subject than the proposal for a Framework Decision on availability. The Convention necessarily leads to the establishment of new databases which in itself presents risks to the protection of personal data. The necessity and proportionality of the establishment of these new databases should be demonstrated. Adequate safeguards for the protection of personal data should be provided.

A ‘data field-by-data field approach’

| 50. | In the third place, as said before, the Convention takes a ‘data field-by-data field approach’. Hereinabove, the EDPS mentioned the difficulties and uncertainties related to the environment in which the principle of availability has to be made effective. Under those circumstances, it is according to the EDPS preferable not to set up a system for a range of data, but to start with a more cautious approach which involves one type of data and to monitor to what extent the principle of availability can effectively support law enforcement, as well as the specific risks for the protection of personal data. Based on these experiences, the system could possibly be extended to other types of data and/or modified in order to be more effective. |
| --- | --- |

50.

In the third place, as said before, the Convention takes a ‘data field-by-data field approach’. Hereinabove, the EDPS mentioned the difficulties and uncertainties related to the environment in which the principle of availability has to be made effective. Under those circumstances, it is according to the EDPS preferable not to set up a system for a range of data, but to start with a more cautious approach which involves one type of data and to monitor to what extent the principle of availability can effectively support law enforcement, as well as the specific risks for the protection of personal data. Based on these experiences, the system could possibly be extended to other types of data and/or modified in order to be more effective.

| 51. | This ‘data field-by-data field approach’ would also better fulfil the requirements of the principle of proportionality. According to the EDPS, the needs for a better cross border exchange of data for the purpose of law enforcement could justify the adoption of a legal instrument on EU level, but to be proportional the instrument should be appropriate to achieve its goal which can be more properly established after a period of practical experiences. Furthermore, the instrument should not disproportionately harm the data subject. The exchange should not relate to more types of data than strictly necessary, with a possibility of an anonymous exchange of data, and should take place under strict conditions of data protection. |
| --- | --- |

51.

This ‘data field-by-data field approach’ would also better fulfil the requirements of the principle of proportionality. According to the EDPS, the needs for a better cross border exchange of data for the purpose of law enforcement could justify the adoption of a legal instrument on EU level, but to be proportional the instrument should be appropriate to achieve its goal which can be more properly established after a period of practical experiences. Furthermore, the instrument should not disproportionately harm the data subject. The exchange should not relate to more types of data than strictly necessary, with a possibility of an anonymous exchange of data, and should take place under strict conditions of data protection.

| 52. | Moreover, a more cautious approach as advocated by the EDPS could — possibly in addition to the ‘data field-by-data field approach’ — include starting the implementation of the availability principle only by way of indirect access, via index data. The EDPS mentions this as a point for consideration in the further legislative process. |
| --- | --- |

52.

Moreover, a more cautious approach as advocated by the EDPS could — possibly in addition to the ‘data field-by-data field approach’ — include starting the implementation of the availability principle only by way of indirect access, via index data. The EDPS mentions this as a point for consideration in the further legislative process.

VI.   WHICH DATA?

| 53. | Annex II enumerates the types of information that may be obtained under the proposed Framework Decision. All of the six types of information listed there are personal data under most circumstances because they all involve a relation to an identified or identifiable person. |
| --- | --- |

53.

Annex II enumerates the types of information that may be obtained under the proposed Framework Decision. All of the six types of information listed there are personal data under most circumstances because they all involve a relation to an identified or identifiable person.

| 54. | Under Article 3(g) of the Proposal, index data shall mean ‘data the purpose of which is to distinctively identify information and that can be queried by means of a search routine to ascertain whether or not information is available’. In the ‘Approach for the implementation of the principle of availability’ (4) the following data are qualified as index data:






  — | the identification of the persons concerned; |
| --- | --- | --- |

54.

Under Article 3(g) of the Proposal, index data shall mean ‘data the purpose of which is to distinctively identify information and that can be queried by means of a search routine to ascertain whether or not information is available’. In the ‘Approach for the implementation of the principle of availability’ (4) the following data are qualified as index data:

—

the identification of the persons concerned;

| — | an identifying number for the objects concerned (vehicles/documents); |
| --- | --- |

—

an identifying number for the objects concerned (vehicles/documents);

| — | fingerprints/digital photos. |
| --- | --- |

—

fingerprints/digital photos.

Another type of data that could qualify as index data would be DNA-profiles. This list of index data reveals that index data may contain personal data and thus, an adequate protection is required.

| 55. | The EDPS specifically addresses the issue of DNA-profiles. DNA analysis has proved to be of significant value for the investigation of crime and efficient exchange of DNA data can be essential to the fight against crime. However, it is essential that the concept of DNA data is clearly defined and that the specific characteristics of these data are properly taken into account. Indeed, from a data protection point of view, there is a big difference between DNA samples and DNA profiles. |
| --- | --- |

55.

The EDPS specifically addresses the issue of DNA-profiles. DNA analysis has proved to be of significant value for the investigation of crime and efficient exchange of DNA data can be essential to the fight against crime. However, it is essential that the concept of DNA data is clearly defined and that the specific characteristics of these data are properly taken into account. Indeed, from a data protection point of view, there is a big difference between DNA samples and DNA profiles.

| 56. | DNA samples (often collected and stored by law enforcement authorities) should be considered as particularly sensitive, since they are more likely to contain the whole DNA ‘picture’. They can provide information on genetic characteristics and the health status of a person, as may be required for totally different purposes such as giving medical advices to individuals or young couples. |
| --- | --- |

56.

DNA samples (often collected and stored by law enforcement authorities) should be considered as particularly sensitive, since they are more likely to contain the whole DNA ‘picture’. They can provide information on genetic characteristics and the health status of a person, as may be required for totally different purposes such as giving medical advices to individuals or young couples.

| 57. | On the contrary, DNA profiles only contain some partial DNA information extracted from the DNA sample: they can be used to verify the identity of a person, but in principle they do not reveal genetic characteristics of a person. Nonetheless, progress in science may increase the information that can be revealed by DNA profiles: what is considered as an ‘innocent’ DNA profile at a certain moment in time, may at a later stage reveal much more information than expected and needed, and in particular information concerning genetic characteristics of a person. The information that can be revealed by DNA profiles should thus be considered as dynamic. |
| --- | --- |

57.

On the contrary, DNA profiles only contain some partial DNA information extracted from the DNA sample: they can be used to verify the identity of a person, but in principle they do not reveal genetic characteristics of a person. Nonetheless, progress in science may increase the information that can be revealed by DNA profiles: what is considered as an ‘innocent’ DNA profile at a certain moment in time, may at a later stage reveal much more information than expected and needed, and in particular information concerning genetic characteristics of a person. The information that can be revealed by DNA profiles should thus be considered as dynamic.

| 58. | In this perspective, the EDPS notes that both the Prüm Convention and the Commission proposal promote the exchange of DNA data between law enforcement, but there are substantial differences in the way they do so. |
| --- | --- |

58.

In this perspective, the EDPS notes that both the Prüm Convention and the Commission proposal promote the exchange of DNA data between law enforcement, but there are substantial differences in the way they do so.

| 59. | The EDPS welcomes that the Commission proposal does not establish any obligation to collect DNA data and that it clearly limits the exchange of DNA data to DNA profiles. Annex II defines DNA profiles through an initial common list of DNA markers used in forensic DNA analysis in Member States. This list — based on the seven DNA markers of the European Standard Set as defined Annex I of the Council Resolution of 25 June 2001 on the exchange of DNA analysis results (5) — guarantees that DNA profiles will not contain, when they are extracted, any information about specific hereditary characteristics. |
| --- | --- |

59.

The EDPS welcomes that the Commission proposal does not establish any obligation to collect DNA data and that it clearly limits the exchange of DNA data to DNA profiles. Annex II defines DNA profiles through an initial common list of DNA markers used in forensic DNA analysis in Member States. This list — based on the seven DNA markers of the European Standard Set as defined Annex I of the Council Resolution of 25 June 2001 on the exchange of DNA analysis results (5) — guarantees that DNA profiles will not contain, when they are extracted, any information about specific hereditary characteristics.

| 60. | The EDPS highlights that this Council Resolution lays down some very important safeguards which are specifically related to the dynamic nature of DNA profiles. Indeed, section III of the Resolution, after limiting the exchanges of DNA analysis results to ‘chromosome zones [...] not known to provide information about specific hereditary characteristics’, further recommends Member States to no longer use those DNA markers which, due to science developments, may provide information on specific hereditary characteristics. |
| --- | --- |

60.

The EDPS highlights that this Council Resolution lays down some very important safeguards which are specifically related to the dynamic nature of DNA profiles. Indeed, section III of the Resolution, after limiting the exchanges of DNA analysis results to ‘chromosome zones [...] not known to provide information about specific hereditary characteristics’, further recommends Member States to no longer use those DNA markers which, due to science developments, may provide information on specific hereditary characteristics.

| 61. | The Prüm Convention provides for a different approach, since it obliges the Contracting Parties to open and keep DNA analysis files for the investigation of criminal offences. It therefore entails the creation of new DNA databases and an increased collection of DNA data. Furthermore, it is unclear which kind of data are included in the ‘DNA analysis files’ and the Convention does not take into account the dynamic evolution of DNA profiles. |
| --- | --- |

61.

The Prüm Convention provides for a different approach, since it obliges the Contracting Parties to open and keep DNA analysis files for the investigation of criminal offences. It therefore entails the creation of new DNA databases and an increased collection of DNA data. Furthermore, it is unclear which kind of data are included in the ‘DNA analysis files’ and the Convention does not take into account the dynamic evolution of DNA profiles.

| 62. | The EDPS points out that any legal instrument laying down exchanges of DNA data should:






  — | Clearly limit and define the type of DNA information which may be exchanged (also with regard to the fundamental difference between DNA samples and DNA profiles). |
| --- | --- | --- |

62.

The EDPS points out that any legal instrument laying down exchanges of DNA data should:

—

Clearly limit and define the type of DNA information which may be exchanged (also with regard to the fundamental difference between DNA samples and DNA profiles).

| — | Set up common technical standards aimed at avoiding that variations in practices on forensic DNA databases in Member States could lead to difficulties and inaccurate results when data are exchanged. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set up common technical standards aimed at avoiding that variations in practices on forensic DNA databases in Member States could lead to difficulties and inaccurate results when data are exchanged.

| — | Provide for appropriate legally binding safeguards aimed at preventing that the developments of science would result in obtaining from DNA profiles personal data which are not only sensitive, but also unnecessary for the purpose for which they were collected. |
| --- | --- |

—

Provide for appropriate legally binding safeguards aimed at preventing that the developments of science would result in obtaining from DNA profiles personal data which are not only sensitive, but also unnecessary for the purpose for which they were collected.

| 63. | In this perspective, the EDPS hereby confirms and integrates the remarks already made in his opinion on the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data (point 80). In that Opinion, the EDPS pointed out, with regard to DNA data, that specific safeguards should be provided, so as to guarantee that: the available information may only be used to identify individuals for the prevention, detection, or investigation of criminal offences; the level of accuracy of DNA profiles is carefully taken into account and might be challenged by the data subject through readily available means; the respect of the dignity of persons must be fully ensured (6). |
| --- | --- |

63.

In this perspective, the EDPS hereby confirms and integrates the remarks already made in his opinion on the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data (point 80). In that Opinion, the EDPS pointed out, with regard to DNA data, that specific safeguards should be provided, so as to guarantee that: the available information may only be used to identify individuals for the prevention, detection, or investigation of criminal offences; the level of accuracy of DNA profiles is carefully taken into account and might be challenged by the data subject through readily available means; the respect of the dignity of persons must be fully ensured (6).

| 64. | These considerations lead furthermore to the conclusion that legislation on the establishment of DNA-files and the exchange of data from these files should only be adopted after an impact assessment in which the benefits and the risks could have been properly assessed. The EDPS recommends that this legislation contains obligations for a regular evaluation after its entry into force. |
| --- | --- |

64.

These considerations lead furthermore to the conclusion that legislation on the establishment of DNA-files and the exchange of data from these files should only be adopted after an impact assessment in which the benefits and the risks could have been properly assessed. The EDPS recommends that this legislation contains obligations for a regular evaluation after its entry into force.

| 65. | Finally, Annex II includes other types of information that may be exchanged. It includes information that originates from private parties since telephone numbers and other communication data, as well as traffic data do normally originate from telephone operators. The explanatory memorandum confirms that Member States are obliged to ensure that law enforcement relevant information controlled by authorities or by private parties designated for this purpose, is shared with equivalent competent authorities of other Member States and Europol. Whereas the proposal applies to personal data originating from private parties, the applicable legal framework should — according to the EDPS — contain additional safeguards to protect the data subject so as to ensure the accuracy of the data. |
| --- | --- |

65.

Finally, Annex II includes other types of information that may be exchanged. It includes information that originates from private parties since telephone numbers and other communication data, as well as traffic data do normally originate from telephone operators. The explanatory memorandum confirms that Member States are obliged to ensure that law enforcement relevant information controlled by authorities or by private parties designated for this purpose, is shared with equivalent competent authorities of other Member States and Europol. Whereas the proposal applies to personal data originating from private parties, the applicable legal framework should — according to the EDPS — contain additional safeguards to protect the data subject so as to ensure the accuracy of the data.

VII.   PRINCIPLES OF DATA PROTECTION

| 66. | The rules on the protection of personal data are not specifically laid down in the proposed Council Framework Decision, while in other instruments, like the Prüm Convention or the Swedish proposal, there are some specific provisions on the protection of personal data. The lack of specific rules on the protection of personal data in the availability proposal is acceptable only insofar as the general rules contained in the proposal for a Framework Decision on data protection in third pillar are fully applicable and provide for a sufficient protection. Moreover, rules on personal data protection laid down by specific instruments — such as the Swedish proposal and the Prüm Convention — should not lower the level of protection ensured by the general framework. The EDPS recommends adding a specific clause on possible conflicts between the different rules on data protection. |
| --- | --- |

66.

The rules on the protection of personal data are not specifically laid down in the proposed Council Framework Decision, while in other instruments, like the Prüm Convention or the Swedish proposal, there are some specific provisions on the protection of personal data. The lack of specific rules on the protection of personal data in the availability proposal is acceptable only insofar as the general rules contained in the proposal for a Framework Decision on data protection in third pillar are fully applicable and provide for a sufficient protection. Moreover, rules on personal data protection laid down by specific instruments — such as the Swedish proposal and the Prüm Convention — should not lower the level of protection ensured by the general framework. The EDPS recommends adding a specific clause on possible conflicts between the different rules on data protection.

| 67. | At this point, the EDPS would like to highlight again, by recalling his opinion with regard to the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data, the importance of having consistent and comprehensive data protection rules in place with regard to law enforcement cooperation that apply to all processing. Subsequently, the EDPS reiterates the other points made in that opinion. In this paragraph, the following data protection issues are emphasised:






  — | Lawful processing of personal data. The EDPS supports the approach that information can be available only if it has been collected lawfully (as mentioned by Article 2.2 with regard to information collected through coercive measures). Lawful processing of personal data would also ensure that information made available and exchanged can be properly used also in a judicial proceeding. Indeed, although information processed after the commencement of a prosecution falls outside the scope of the proposed instrument, it is still likely that information exchanged before by law enforcement authorities ends up in judicial proceedings. |
| --- | --- | --- |

67.

At this point, the EDPS would like to highlight again, by recalling his opinion with regard to the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data, the importance of having consistent and comprehensive data protection rules in place with regard to law enforcement cooperation that apply to all processing. Subsequently, the EDPS reiterates the other points made in that opinion. In this paragraph, the following data protection issues are emphasised:

—

Lawful processing of personal data. The EDPS supports the approach that information can be available only if it has been collected lawfully (as mentioned by Article 2.2 with regard to information collected through coercive measures). Lawful processing of personal data would also ensure that information made available and exchanged can be properly used also in a judicial proceeding. Indeed, although information processed after the commencement of a prosecution falls outside the scope of the proposed instrument, it is still likely that information exchanged before by law enforcement authorities ends up in judicial proceedings.

| — | Quality of personal data is of specific importance since the availability principle favours that information will be used by law enforcement authorities operating outside the context in which the data were collected. Those authorities even have direct access to databases of other Member States. The quality of the personal data can only be ensured if its accuracy is regularly and properly checked, if information is distinguished according to the different categories of persons concerned (victims, suspects, witnesses, etc), and if, when necessary, the decree of accuracy is indicated (see EDPS Opinion on the protection of personal data, IV.6).
  These points make once more clear why data protection rules, and especially rules on accuracy, should be applicable to all kinds of processing, also to domestic ones. Otherwise, personal data which are directly accessed could be incorrect, out of date and thus impinge both on the data subjects' rights and on the efficiency of investigations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Quality of personal data is of specific importance since the availability principle favours that information will be used by law enforcement authorities operating outside the context in which the data were collected. Those authorities even have direct access to databases of other Member States. The quality of the personal data can only be ensured if its accuracy is regularly and properly checked, if information is distinguished according to the different categories of persons concerned (victims, suspects, witnesses, etc), and if, when necessary, the decree of accuracy is indicated (see EDPS Opinion on the protection of personal data, IV.6).

These points make once more clear why data protection rules, and especially rules on accuracy, should be applicable to all kinds of processing, also to domestic ones. Otherwise, personal data which are directly accessed could be incorrect, out of date and thus impinge both on the data subjects' rights and on the efficiency of investigations.

| — | Purpose limitation. According to the principle of availability, personal data may be accessed by equivalent competent authorities of other Member States. However, the competences of law enforcement authorities may substantially differ from country to country. It is therefore essential to ensure that the basic principle of purpose limitation is respected in spite of the different scope of competences of the various competent authorities exchanging the data. Information which is collected and processed by a certain authority with a specific purpose can not then be used for a different purpose just by virtue of the different, maybe broader, competences of the receiving authority.
  Therefore, the EDPS welcomes Article 7 of the proposed Framework Decision, which should be read as a specification of the general rules laid down in the proposed Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. Furthermore, the EDPS notes that the assessment of the equivalence between different authorities (which in the current proposal is left to a comitology procedure) should be carried out carefully and with due respect to the purpose limitation principle. |
| --- | --- |

—

Purpose limitation. According to the principle of availability, personal data may be accessed by equivalent competent authorities of other Member States. However, the competences of law enforcement authorities may substantially differ from country to country. It is therefore essential to ensure that the basic principle of purpose limitation is respected in spite of the different scope of competences of the various competent authorities exchanging the data. Information which is collected and processed by a certain authority with a specific purpose can not then be used for a different purpose just by virtue of the different, maybe broader, competences of the receiving authority.

Therefore, the EDPS welcomes Article 7 of the proposed Framework Decision, which should be read as a specification of the general rules laid down in the proposed Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. Furthermore, the EDPS notes that the assessment of the equivalence between different authorities (which in the current proposal is left to a comitology procedure) should be carried out carefully and with due respect to the purpose limitation principle.

| — | Time limits for storing exchanged information shall also be seen in the light of the purpose limitation principle: information accessed or exchanged for one purpose should be deleted as soon as it is no longer necessary for that purpose. This would avoid unnecessary duplication of databases, while still allowing competent authorities to access (updated) available information again, in case it is necessary for another legitimate purpose. |
| --- | --- |

—

Time limits for storing exchanged information shall also be seen in the light of the purpose limitation principle: information accessed or exchanged for one purpose should be deleted as soon as it is no longer necessary for that purpose. This would avoid unnecessary duplication of databases, while still allowing competent authorities to access (updated) available information again, in case it is necessary for another legitimate purpose.

| — | Logging of information transmitted according to the principle of availability. Logging should take place on both sides: in the requested as well as in the requesting Member State. Access logs, not only exchange logs, should be kept (see EDPS Opinion on the protection of personal data, point 133), also with a view to ensuring that national competent authorities trust each other and do not completely loose control over the information available. The need for traceability of information also implies a possibility to update and/or correct information. |
| --- | --- |

—

Logging of information transmitted according to the principle of availability. Logging should take place on both sides: in the requested as well as in the requesting Member State. Access logs, not only exchange logs, should be kept (see EDPS Opinion on the protection of personal data, point 133), also with a view to ensuring that national competent authorities trust each other and do not completely loose control over the information available. The need for traceability of information also implies a possibility to update and/or correct information.

| — | Rights of data subjects. Systems for exchange of information between EU law enforcement authorities increase situations whereby personal data are (temporarily) processed at the same time by competent authorities in different Member States. This means on one hand that common EU-standards on data subjects' rights should be established, and on the other hand that data subjects should be able to exercise their rights, to the extent allowed by rules on data protection in third pillar, with regard to both authorities that make data available and authorities that access and process these data. |
| --- | --- |

—

Rights of data subjects. Systems for exchange of information between EU law enforcement authorities increase situations whereby personal data are (temporarily) processed at the same time by competent authorities in different Member States. This means on one hand that common EU-standards on data subjects' rights should be established, and on the other hand that data subjects should be able to exercise their rights, to the extent allowed by rules on data protection in third pillar, with regard to both authorities that make data available and authorities that access and process these data.

| — | Supervision. The EDPS points out that, depending on the case, more than one national supervisory authority may be competent to monitor the processing of personal data carried out on the basis of the current proposals. In this regard, direct online access to law enforcement information calls for an enhanced supervision and coordination by relevant national data protection authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

Supervision. The EDPS points out that, depending on the case, more than one national supervisory authority may be competent to monitor the processing of personal data carried out on the basis of the current proposals. In this regard, direct online access to law enforcement information calls for an enhanced supervision and coordination by relevant national data protection authorities.

VIII.   CONCLUSIONS

General conclusions relating to the principle of availability

| 68. | The EDPS uses the occasion to present in this opinion some general and more fundamental points of view on the subject of exchange of law enforcement information and on the approaches for regulating this subject. The EDPS will be available for further consultation at a later stage, following relevant developments in the legislative process on this proposal or on other related proposals. |
| --- | --- |

68.

The EDPS uses the occasion to present in this opinion some general and more fundamental points of view on the subject of exchange of law enforcement information and on the approaches for regulating this subject. The EDPS will be available for further consultation at a later stage, following relevant developments in the legislative process on this proposal or on other related proposals.

| 69. | According to the EDPS, the principle of availability should be implemented into a binding legal instrument by way of a more cautious, gradual approach which involves one type of data and to monitor to what extent the principle of availability can effectively support law enforcement, as well as the specific risks for the protection of personal data. This more cautious approach could include starting with the implementation of the availability principle only by way of indirect access, via index data. Based on these experiences, the system could possibly be extended to other types of data and/or modified in order to be more effective. |
| --- | --- |

69.

According to the EDPS, the principle of availability should be implemented into a binding legal instrument by way of a more cautious, gradual approach which involves one type of data and to monitor to what extent the principle of availability can effectively support law enforcement, as well as the specific risks for the protection of personal data. This more cautious approach could include starting with the implementation of the availability principle only by way of indirect access, via index data. Based on these experiences, the system could possibly be extended to other types of data and/or modified in order to be more effective.

| 70. | Any legal instrument implementing the principle of availability should not be adopted without the prior adoption of essential guarantees on data protection as included in the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

70.

Any legal instrument implementing the principle of availability should not be adopted without the prior adoption of essential guarantees on data protection as included in the Proposal for a Framework Decision on the protection of personal data.

Recommendations aiming to modify the present proposal

| 71. | The EDPS recommends clarifying the scope of the principle of availability as follows:






  — | Adding a clear and precise definition of the data that will be considered available. |
| --- | --- | --- |

71.

The EDPS recommends clarifying the scope of the principle of availability as follows:

—

Adding a clear and precise definition of the data that will be considered available.

| — | As a first option, limiting the scope of the principle of availability to information controlled by competent authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

As a first option, limiting the scope of the principle of availability to information controlled by competent authorities.

| — | As a second option, in case of a broader scope, ensuring sufficient safeguards for the protection of personal data. The questions raised in point 27 of this opinion have to be taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

—

As a second option, in case of a broader scope, ensuring sufficient safeguards for the protection of personal data. The questions raised in point 27 of this opinion have to be taken into consideration.

| 72. | The EDPS makes the following observations on direct access to databases by a competent authority of another Member State:






  — | The issue has to be properly addressed since, in case of direct access, the designated authorities of the originating Member State have no control over the access and the further use of the data. |
| --- | --- | --- |

72.

The EDPS makes the following observations on direct access to databases by a competent authority of another Member State:

—

The issue has to be properly addressed since, in case of direct access, the designated authorities of the originating Member State have no control over the access and the further use of the data.

| — | The proposal may not promote an unconditional interconnection of databases and thus a network of databases which will be hard to supervise |
| --- | --- |

—

The proposal may not promote an unconditional interconnection of databases and thus a network of databases which will be hard to supervise

| 73. | The Framework Decision should be more precise on the establishment of a system of index data. More in particular:






  — | The proposal should provide for adequate rules, at least on the creation of index data, on the management of the filing systems of index data and on the adequate organisation of the access to the index data. |
| --- | --- | --- |

73.

The Framework Decision should be more precise on the establishment of a system of index data. More in particular:

—

The proposal should provide for adequate rules, at least on the creation of index data, on the management of the filing systems of index data and on the adequate organisation of the access to the index data.

| — | The definition of index data needs to be clarified. |
| --- | --- |

—

The definition of index data needs to be clarified.

| — | The proposal should clarify the role of national contact points as regards index data. |
| --- | --- |

—

The proposal should clarify the role of national contact points as regards index data.

| — | The basic rules for the creation of index data should be included in the Framework Decision itself and not left to implementing legislation in accordance with the comitology-procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

The basic rules for the creation of index data should be included in the Framework Decision itself and not left to implementing legislation in accordance with the comitology-procedure.

| 74. | The EDPS points out that the proposal -in so far as it lays down exchanges of DNA data — should:






  — | Clearly limit and define the type of DNA information which may be exchanged (also with regard to the fundamental difference between DNA samples and DNA profiles). |
| --- | --- | --- |

74.

The EDPS points out that the proposal -in so far as it lays down exchanges of DNA data — should:

—

Clearly limit and define the type of DNA information which may be exchanged (also with regard to the fundamental difference between DNA samples and DNA profiles).

| — | Set up common technical standards aimed at avoiding that variations in practices on forensic DNA databases in Member States could lead to difficulties and inaccurate results when data are exchanged |
| --- | --- |

—

Set up common technical standards aimed at avoiding that variations in practices on forensic DNA databases in Member States could lead to difficulties and inaccurate results when data are exchanged

| — | Provide for appropriate legally binding safeguards aimed at preventing that the developments of science would result in obtaining from DNA profiles personal data which are not only sensitive, but also unnecessary for the purpose for which they were collected. |
| --- | --- |

—

Provide for appropriate legally binding safeguards aimed at preventing that the developments of science would result in obtaining from DNA profiles personal data which are not only sensitive, but also unnecessary for the purpose for which they were collected.

| — | Only be adopted after an impact assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Only be adopted after an impact assessment.

| 75. | The EDPS advises limiting the information exchange with Europol to the purposes of Europol itself, as mentioned in Article 2 of the Europol Convention and the Annex thereof. |
| --- | --- |

75.

The EDPS advises limiting the information exchange with Europol to the purposes of Europol itself, as mentioned in Article 2 of the Europol Convention and the Annex thereof.

Done at Brussels on 28 February 2006.

Peter HUSTINX

European Data protection Supervisor

---

(1)  Opinion of 26 September 2005 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (COM (2005) 438 final).

1

(2)  Replies to questionnaire on Framework Decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the EU, in particular as regards serious offences including terrorist acts (Council Doc No 5815/1/05).

2

(3)  See Commission Staff Working Document Annex to the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability, SEC 2005 (1207) of 12.10.2005.

3

(4)  Document from the Presidency to the Council of 5 April 2005 (Doc. No.: 7641/05).

4

(5)  OJ C 187, p. 1.

5

(6)  In the same line, see also the Council of Europe's ‘Progress Report on the Application of the Principles of Convention 108 to the Collection and Processing of personal biometric data’, February 2005.

6

---