# EUR-Lex - 52012DC0732 - EN

*|*

# 52012DC0732

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (the ‘Prüm Decision’) /* COM/2012/0732 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of Council Decision
2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation,
particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (the ‘Prüm
Decision’)

1.           Introduction

The purpose of this report is to take stock
of the situation more than four years after the adoption of Council Decision
2008/615/JHA and more than one year after the deadline of 26 August 2011 for its
full implementation. Originally, this report was meant not only to assess implementation
but also to reflect on recommendations for further development of the
instrument (cf. Article 36(4)). Since implementation is lagging behind
considerably, the Commission decided not to consider further developments
before full implementation. By doing so, the Commission aims to avoid further
slowing down implementation efforts and to facilitate swift implementation in a
legally stable environment.

Nonetheless, the state of implementation is
insufficient and the Commission therefore invites Member States to make all
efforts necessary to implement the Decision in full.

Although the experiences of operational[1] Member States have proven the
added value of the instrument, some problems have emerged. Therefore this
report, although focusing on implementation, will also reflect on the main
difficulties in the operation of the instrument.

To prepare this report, the Commission
circulated a questionnaire (‘the Prüm questionnaire’) to which 25 Member States
(all except MT and PT) replied. Information is also drawn from:

· 
the Joint Prüm post-deadline questionnaire of
the Polish Council Presidency and the Mobile Competence Team (MCT)[2] (doc CM 4285/11);

· 
the semi-annual report on Prüm implementation
(doc 17761/11);

· 
discussions at DAPIX[3] and in Prüm subgroups;

· 
discussions for developing the European
Information Exchange Model (EIXM);

· 
contacts and meetings with lead experts in DNA,
fingerprint and VRD data exchange, with MCT and with the Prüm helpdesk[4].

2.           The instrument

The Convention
on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, also called the ‘Prüm Convention’,
was agreed by 7 European countries on 27 May 2005. Additional countries have subsequently
acceded to the Convention (BG, RO, SI, FI, HU, EE, SK).

On 23 June 2008,
important parts of the Convention were transformed into EU law when Council
Decision 2008/615/JHA[5]
was adopted. At the same time, the Council adopted Decision 2008/616/JHA on the
implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA[6]
(together, both Decisions are referred to as ‘the two Prüm Decisions’).

Iceland and
Norway were associated with the two Prüm Decisions in November 2009 when they
signed the agreement on the application of certain provisions of the Council
Decisions.

Elements of the Prüm Decision

The Prüm Decision consists of 4 elements:

(a) 
Automated search of data

The provisions for automated searching and
comparison of data from national data files in the area of DNA, dactyloscopic
data (fingerprints) and vehicle registration data (VRD) are mainly in Chapter
2. This part is not only a far-reaching step in the area of law-enforcement
information exchange but also the most complex part to implement.

(b) 
Information exchange for the prevention of
offences

Chapters 3 and 4 contain provisions regarding
the prevention of offences in the context of major events with a cross-border
dimension and regarding possible terrorist offences.

(c) 
Police cooperation

Chapter 5 provides for stepping up cross-border
police cooperation, including the possibility to exercise executive powers on
another Member State’s territory.

(d) 
Data protection

Chapter 6 contains comprehensive specific data
protection rules for the application of the Decision.

The term "operational" in this report
means that the Council has adopted a Decision allowing a Member State to
exchange a certain type of data and refers only to an initial capacity for
automated data sharing. Before the Council can adopt this Decision, a Member
State is required to undergo evaluation by experts of other Member States.[7]

3.           State of implementation

DNA data

Besides the 18 Member States (as at 31
October 2012) listed in the annex, a further 5 have indicated that they are considerably
advanced in the required steps for the automated exchange of DNA data and are likely
to become operational in early 2013. Whereas the situation in this area gave
cause for concern at the legal deadline for implementation in August 2011, it has
since then remarkably improved. However, 4 Member States (EL, IE, IT, UK) still
need to step up their efforts significantly.

Fingerprints

The area of fingerprint data has the
highest number of Member States seriously lagging behind. As at 31 October 2012,
only 14 Member States were ready for searches in their automated fingerprint
identification systems (AFIS) by other Member States. Another 7 are expected to
complete their technical implementation and be ready for evaluation in early
2013. For 6 Member States (EL, IE, IT, PL, PT, UK) it remains unclear when they
will go operational according to the information available to the Commission.

Vehicle Registration Data

As at 31 October 2012, only 13 Member
States were operational in the area of VRD. However, fast progress can be
expected for a number of additional Member States. Another 4 have passed or are
ready for Council evaluation, and for 7 serious efforts can be observed. Only 3
Member States (EL, PT, UK) either have not undertaken any noteworthy activities
or are encountering lasting difficulties. Altogether, the picture for VRD is
promising, since it is technically the easiest to connect to all other
operational partners once a Member State is operational.

Implementation of Chapters 3, 4 and 5

All Member States except one have
designated national contact points under Chapters 3 and 4 (Articles 15 and 16).
Therefore it can be assumed that they have functionally implemented these
chapters. As regards Chapter 5, 5 Member States replied to the Prüm
questionnaire that legal or administrative provisions were not yet in place[8].

The implementation of these chapters is considerably
advanced compared to the automated data exchange provisions, since there are no
costly and time-consuming technical installations required. Given that the
deadline for these chapters had already elapsed on 26 August 2009, the
Member States that have not yet done so should put in place the national requirements
as soon as possible and inform the General Secretariat of the Council and the
Commission.

Data protection provisions

The exchange of data under the Prüm
Decision may only take place when all data protection provisions of
Chapter 6 have been implemented into national law. This is examined by
experts of other Member States as part of the evaluation procedure through a
questionnaire[9].
By its Decision to allow a Member State the exchange of personal data, the
Council acknowledges that this Member State complies with all required data
protection provisions.

As at 31 October 2012 the following Member
States had not yet submitted the reply to this questionnaire: DK, EL, IE, IT. At
the same time only IT and EL had not yet complied with the requirement[10] to indicate the independent
data protection authority responsible for the Prüm data exchange.

4.           Reasons for delays in implementation

4.1.        Technical difficulties

The Polish Presidency collected comprehensive
data on the reasons for delays in implementation in 2011. The results were
reflected in the semi-annual Presidency report of 28 November 2011. In summary,
the main reasons for delays were technical in nature and caused by a lack of
human and financial resources in the Member States.

Although several Member States have managed
to overcome these problems in the meantime, it can be assumed that the nature of
the problem has not changed fundamentally since 2011. This assumption was
confirmed during discussions in the DAPIX subgroups and in bilateral contacts
between the Commission and national and lead experts.

4.2.        Funding

According to the semi-annual report, financing
was a serious problem for implementation in 10 non-operational Member States.
Of those, 6 have since submitted applications for EU funding under the
Prevention of and Fight against Crime (ISEC) programme. At the same time, a
number of Member States have still not yet sought financial support, including
those that are lagging in implementation.

The number of Prüm-related ISEC applications
reached a new peak in 2011 with 9 contracted projects and another 6 still being
evaluated as of 30 September 2012.

EU funding for Prüm-related ISEC projects up
to August 2012 totals EUR 6.2 million, with another EUR 5.7 million
for already contracted but not yet completed actions. Pending applications from
late 2011 represent another potential EUR 4.9 million.

The Commission will continue making EU funding
available for implementation under the ISEC programme in 2013.

4.3.        Conclusion

Implementing the two Prüm Decisions poses a
number of administrative, technical and financial challenges. At the same time,
there are several possibilities to seek support if needed: besides EU funding,
there is the MCT and the Prüm helpdesk at Europol and, last but not least,
there are a number of operational Member States that now have considerable
experience in running the Prüm instrument and which can be consulted for
advice.

Bearing in mind the indicated technical
problems and scarce resources, it is surprising that non-operational Member
States have been reluctant to request support from the MCT.

Given the various possibilities to obtain
support and the long period of time that has elapsed since the adoption of the two
Prüm Decisions, it is hard to see any reasons which could justify lack of
implementation. What is needed above all seems to be political will and
appropriate prioritisation to overcome barriers at national level.

Prüm was adopted under the former third
pillar, so the usual rules for control of national implementation do not apply
during a transitional period. As of December 2014, however, the Commission will
have the possibility of using infringement proceedings[11].

5.           Use of the instrument

5.1       Automated information exchange
under Chapter 2

For a growing group of Member States, Prüm
has become a routine tool in investigating crime with a potential cross-border
dimension.

Two years after the Commission’s mapping
exercise with national and EU experts to look at how information exchange
worked in practice revealed quite a positive attitude among most Member States
towards Prüm, this result was confirmed by the replies to the Prüm
questionnaire. However, this finding is not always matched by the pace of action
taken in some Member States to implement the instrument.

According to the questionnaire, more than
half of the competent authorities in Member States see an enormous added value
in the areas of VRD and DNA data exchange for the prevention and investigation
of criminal offences. For fingerprints, about 40 % of respondents attach
an enormous value to the instrument while more than 50 % consider it to
add at least some value.

The procedural efficiency of the mechanisms
is considered very good or good for VRD by almost all respondents answering
this question. The picture is less homogeneous for DNA and fingerprints: for
both, efficiency is considered only acceptable or even inadequate by about 30 %
(see 5.2.2).

Statistics

In many Member States, the authority
recording Prüm matches is not the same as that using the data for
investigations. And often only a third authority, such as the prosecutor’s
office, is able to assess the value of a certain piece of information
originating in the Prüm exchange. Nevertheless, appropriate statistical data are
crucial for a comprehensive evaluation. Assessing the actual impact of the Prüm
Decisions is hardly possible without such data.

Within the DAPIX Working Group, different
possible options for statistic models were discussed. Due to the administrative
difficulties mentioned above, the majority of Member States have opted for a
model focusing on the number of matches between data sets. Although this is a
reasonable interim solution, additional efforts will be required in the future
to better reflect the use of these matches in investigations.

2011 was the first year for which comparable
statistics were collected. The collected data showed that the accuracy of statistics
for all three data types still needs to be improved. Nonetheless, the results based
on currently available figures are promising and demonstrate that the
operational authorities are already making significant use of Prüm[12]:

· 
Total verified matches for fingerprints in 2011:
2 553

· 
Total DNA matches in 2011 according to current model:
20 719

· 
Total VRD requests in 2011 for which information
was found: 260 253[13]

Individual cases where automated DNA or FP
searches were conducted certainly cannot replace exact figures. Still, they give
an insight into the kind of investigation where Prüm can significantly
contribute to success. The following example from Germany illustrates the value
of Prüm in a cross-border context:

In the late summer of 2011 a man was found stabbed to death in a north-western German city. On the crime scene, police experts discovered a fingerprint on a door frame in the apartment where the man had been found. Although there was no obvious link to another country, an automated Prüm search led to a hit in the Bulgarian AFIS database. The follow-up information requested from Bulgaria the following day was sent within three hours and was immediately entered into the Schengen Information System. Already the next day the individual concerned was arrested in Austria.

5.2       Room for improvement

Despite the general appreciation by
investigators, a number of difficulties emerged during the early days of operation.
The most important are discussed in this section.

5.2.1    Post-hit follow-up

Article 5 (for DNA) and Article 10 (for
fingerprints) stipulate that ‘(...) the supply of further available personal
data (...) shall be governed by the national law, including the legal assistance
rules, of the requested Member State.’

Although the Prüm Decisions do not contain
detailed provisions for following up a match between data sets (also called a ‘hit’),
this has turned out to be a key issue. The automated search function is an
enormous advance. But without a proper follow-up, ‘hits’ have hardly any
meaning for investigators.

In the Prüm questionnaire, 18 out of 24
Member States generally point to the need to improve the follow-up to Prüm
hits, one third focusing on national structures while a majority sees a need
for action primarily at EU level.

Some experts criticise the lack of any
standardisation. For managing follow-up requests roughly equal use is be made
of the Europol and Interpol channels while only a few Member States prefer the
SIRENE offices or bilateral liaison officers. In some Member States the choice
depends on the type of data; in other cases it depends on the crime phenomenon.
In any event it is quite a heterogeneous picture, which according to experts sometimes
leads to delays.

Another issue is the establishment of
contact points: proposals range from establishing specific contact points for
Prüm follow-up to integrating the mechanisms within the national single points
of contact (SPOCs), as outlined in the EIXM Communication.

The potential for simplification through
technical solutions has also been discussed. Here, it is noteworthy that the
Prüm follow-up procedure has been selected as a pilot project between Belgium,
Germany and Poland under the UMF II programme[14]. This programme, largely
funded by the Commission and managed by Europol, aims to establish a common
framework for structured cross-border information exchange between law
enforcement authorities, including a common semantic information model and
exchange format.

The Commission’s Communication on the
European Information Exchange Model (EIXM) touches on these issues and makes
relevant recommendations.

5.2.2    Technical and administrative
specifications for implementation

Other aspects hampering the use of Prüm
relate to a number of specifications for automated data exchange laid down in the
Prüm Implementing Decision 2008/616/JHA.

A considerable number of Member States consider
that the matching rules, in particular for DNA data, are not fully satisfactory
and should be designed in a better way so as to avoid matches that are identified
as false upon subsequent verification.

Another problem commonly raised by experts
is seen in the specifications concerning the interface control document (ICD)
for fingerprint exchange, which leaves too much room for interpretation in its
current version and thus can lead to technical incompatibilities. Moreover,
more efficient use of limited search capacities in the area of fingerprint data
is suggested by some Member States to ease the danger of overloading national
systems. They propose that capacities not used by one Member State should be available
for use by others, whereby the Member State receiving the request should itself
indicate when the limit of its search capacity is reached.

A few Member States have expressed concerns
regarding national capacities for verifying transmitted possible matches (candidates)
after a request with fingerprint data. The more Member States become
operational in this area, the more staff resources need to be available for the
required manual verification of hits to avoid a situation where this requirement
constitutes a limitation on fingerprint data exchange.

While they do not justify failure to
implement the Prüm Decisions, these difficulties might hamper the implementation
efforts of some Member States that are not yet operational. Improved functioning
of the system would create an even stronger incentive for swift implementation
(see below for recommendations).

5.2.3    Mobile Competence Team (MCT)
and Prüm helpdesk at Europol

Both the MCT and the Prüm helpdesk set up
at Europol in January 2012 support Member States in implementing and running
the system. The MCT mainly focuses on first-line support for implementing the exchange
of DNA and fingerprint data while the helpdesk provides support to operational
Member States.

Both have developed a series of activities
to address the difficulties described above in section 5.2.2. For this purpose,
informal expert groups (so-called focus groups) have been set up. DNA matching
rules and the interpretation of the fingerprint ICD are dealt with in dedicated
focus groups. Software migration management and the facilitation of test
procedures as well as security certificate management for testing and running
the system among operational participants have been identified as relevant
fields for coordination for the Prüm helpdesk. Another is to improve the post-hit
follow-up. Furthermore, the helpdesk has established a Europol Platform for
Experts (EPE) in order to facilitate the sharing of relevant knowledge. All
activities currently carried out by the MCT are planned to be transferred to
the helpdesk after the end of the MCT project in July 2013, if the tasks are
still required by then.

5.3       Police cooperation and
information exchange (Chapters 3 to 5)

The general appreciation among Member
States for the provisions under these chapters is high. In their replies to the
Prüm questionnaire, Member States express the following opinions:

Chapter 3 (major events) is considered by
Member States to be

very useful      13

useless by       3

in between      5 (4 MS not replying to this
section)

Chapter 4 (measures to prevent terrorist
offences) is considered by Member States to be

very useful      8

useless by       5

in between      6 (6 MS not replying to this
section)

Chapter 5 (other forms of cooperation) is
considered by Member States to be

very useful      14

useless by       1

in between      6 (4 MS not replying to this
section)

What is striking is the relatively low
usefulness seen in measures to prevent terrorism under Chapter 4. Although
alternative legal bases exist for Chapter 4 in 15 Member States, this can
hardly explain the lower appreciation for this chapter, since the numbers for Chapter 3
(17 MS) and Chapter 5 (15 MS) are similar. As regards the actual use of
these chapters, quite a mixed picture can be observed.

Use of provisions || Chapter 3 (major events) || Chapter 4 (terrorist offences) || Chapter 5 (other forms of cooperation)

Often || 8 || 5 || 5

Sometimes || 7 || 2 || 10

Never || 6 || 15 || 8

In practice, the most frequent forms of
operational police cooperation are joint patrols, common traffic controls and
support at major events, followed by personal and document checks and support
with special equipment. Other forms of cooperation are found in only a few
cases.

Conclusions

From the data available, it can be
concluded that a clear majority of Member States welcome these provisions even
if in practice they use them only occasionally.

General difficulties regarding the
application of these chapters are not known to the Commission. No case has been
reported on the application of Articles 21 and 22 relating to civil or criminal
liabilities. In any event, however, the response to the Prüm questionnaire on
the need to review these chapters was unequivocal: 20 Member States saw no need
for this, as opposed to 1 to 2 Member States in favour of revision.

6.           Recommendations

First, Member States that are seriously
delayed should make better use of existing possibilities. This applies to
funding under Commission programmes as well as to support offered by the MCT
and the helpdesk at Europol. It is hardly comprehensible that Member States
encountering difficulties with resources or technical know-how can fail to make
use of existing support facilities. Therefore, affected Member States are
invited again to contact the MCT (while this project is running) or the
helpdesk. Moreover, Member States in this situation should consider submitting
applications for implementation projects under the ISEC funding programme before
it expires after 2013. At the same time, operational Member States are invited
to maintain and, where necessary, increase their readiness to support
implementing Member States, e.g. by designating experts for evaluation visits.

As regards running the instrument and
possible improvements short of legal amendments, again the work of the MCT and
helpdesk should be taken into consideration. The mentioned focus groups are a
good starting point to agree pragmatic solutions where ambiguities might exist
in the legal provisions and where there is room for increasing efficiency in
the current mechanism. Also, Member States that are not yet operational are
advised to follow the results of the focus groups when implementing.

The provision of meaningful statistics remains
essential as this is the best way to assess the added value of the Prüm
Decisions. Therefore, Member States are invited to reconsider options to
improve the current models for statistics where necessary. The aim should be to
identify even more exactly the number of matches that, after a follow-up
request, turned up information actually used in criminal investigations. Filtering
statistics for DNA data exchange under Option 2 of document 12226/11[15] would be a useful step in the
right direction. This direction should be followed irrespective of what model
of unfiltered statistics has been agreed by DAPIX.

Without prejudice to the obvious and urgent
need to implement fully the existing instruments, and in line with the
Commission’s 2010 Communication ‘Overview of information management in the area
of freedom, security and justice’[16],
the Commission will fully apply the substantive and process-oriented principles
set out in that Communication whenever the future implementation of other
systems (such as SIS II) concerns a technology used for the Prüm Decisions or
the objectives pursued by them. Consequently, given the current economic
climate, particular emphasis should be put on the need to be as cost-effective
as possible.

Though beyond the scope of the Decisions,
the procedures for following up hits has turned out to be a key aspect. In this
context, ongoing activities to map national follow-up procedures[17] and related activities of the
helpdesk for a standardised message format should also be considered. The
Commission’s Communication on a European Information Exchange Model (EIXM),
published together with this report, presents further recommendations in this regard.

ANNEX

Overview of
operational Member States

Explanation:

The tables reflect the current state of implementation for the
different data types DNA, Fingerprints and VRD. In some cases, Member States do
not yet exchange information in practice although they are considered ‘operational’,
meaning that the Council has adopted a Decision allowing these Member States to
exchange the data concerned.

Operational Member States are for

· 
DNA: BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, CY, LV, LT, LU, HU,
NL, AT, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI

· 
FP: BG, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, CY, LT, LU, HU, NL, AT,
SI, SK

· 
VRD: BE, DE, ES, FR, LT, LU, NL, AT, PL, RO, SE, SI,
FI

Grey fields
indicate that two Member States started exchanging the data type displayed in the
table.

The tables are annexed to Council document 5086/7/12 and updated
approximately every six weeks. The present tables are from REV 7, issued on 12 October
2012.

DNA operational data exchange

|| BE || BG || CZ || DK || DE || EE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || CY || LV || LT || LU || HU || MT || NL || AT || PL || PT || RO || SI || SK || FI || SE || UK

BE || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CZ || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DK || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EE || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EL || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ES || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FR || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IE || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IT || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CY || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LV || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LU || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HU || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || ||

MT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || ||

NL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || ||

AT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || ||

PL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || ||

PT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || ||

RO || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || ||

SI || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || ||

SK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || ||

FI || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || ||

SE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x ||

UK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x

FP operational data exchange

|| BE || BG || CZ || DK || DE || EE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || CY || LV || LT || LU || HU || MT || NL || AT || PL || PT || RO || SI || SK || FI || SE || UK

BE || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CZ || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DK || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EE || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EL || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ES || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FR || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IE || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IT || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CY || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LV || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LU || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HU || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || ||

MT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || ||

NL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || ||

AT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || ||

PL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || ||

PT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || ||

RO || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || ||

SI || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || ||

SK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || ||

FI || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || ||

SE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x ||

UK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x

VRD operational data exchange

|| BE || BG || CZ || DK || DE || EE || EL || ES || FR || IE || IT || CY || LV || LT || LU || HU || MT || NL || AT || PL || PT || RO || SI || SK || FI || SE || UK

BE || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

BG || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CZ || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DK || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

DE || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EE || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

EL || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

ES || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

FR || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IE || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

IT || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

CY || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LV || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

LU || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || || ||

HU || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || || ||

MT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || || ||

NL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || || ||

AT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || || ||

PL || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || || ||

PT || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || || ||

RO || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || || ||

SI || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || || ||

SK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || || ||

FI || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x || ||

SE || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x ||

UK || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || x

[1]               For the term ‘operational’ see 2. (d).

[2]               MCT is a Commission-funded German project aimed at
supporting non-operational Member States in implementing the Prüm Decisions
(2011 to 2013).

[3]               Council Working Group on data protection and
information exchange.

[4]               For MCT see footnote 2; for Prüm helpdesk see point 5.2.3.

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

[6]               OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 12.

[7]               This provision does not apply to those Member States
where the supply of personal data started pursuant to the Prüm Convention.

[8]               Information from national declarations about
practical aspects of cooperation is in some cases contained in the ‘manual on
cross-border operations’ (doc. 10505/4/09).

[9]               Council document 6661/1/09.

[10]             See Article 30(5)
of the Prüm Decision.

[11]             Protocol No 36 TFEU.

[12]             Doc. 11367/12.

[13]             The imbalances between these figures do not reflect the
overall importance of the individual data types but the fact that different
data types are used in differing ways in police practice.

[14]             UMF II stands for the second project on a
Universal Message Format (doc. 7753/10).

[15]             This option would allow the filtering out of matches ultimately
not used for investigations due to technical reasons or national policing
approaches.

[16]             COM(2010) 385.

[17]             Draft 2nd action list for the implementation of IMS
(Information Management Strategy), doc. 12002/1/11 and doc 5113/12.