Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Development of the Schengen Information System II and possible synergies with a future Visa Information System (VIS)
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, admission of aliens, information system

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 11.12.2003
COM(2003) 771 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Development of the Schengen Information System II and possible synergies with
a future Visa Information System (VIS)

.

EN

  EN

CONTENTS

1.

1.1.

1.2.

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4

Scope of the Communication ....................................................................................... 4

The Schengen Information System - From the current SIS to SIS II........................... 4

1.2.1.

The current SIS ............................................................................................................ 4

1.2.2. Need for a new generation SIS..................................................................................... 5

1.3.

1.4.

Development of SIS II ................................................................................................. 6

Constraints and key issues ........................................................................................... 7

1.4.1. Constraints ................................................................................................................... 7

1.4.2. Key issues..................................................................................................................... 8

2.

2.1.

Progress report ............................................................................................................. 8

Results achieved (January-June 2003) and the way forward
(July-December 2003).................................................................................................. 8

2.1.1. Main activity: feasibility study..................................................................................... 9

2.1.2. Current activity: preparation of the call for tender....................................................... 9

2.1.3. Next steps ................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.4.

SIS II Committee........................................................................................................ 11

2.1.5.

Involvement of the Acceding Countries .................................................................... 11

2.1.6. Commission project management .............................................................................. 12

3.

Architecture................................................................................................................ 12

3.1.

SIS II Requirements ................................................................................................... 12

3.1.1. General requirements ................................................................................................. 12

3.1.2. Relative weightings of the requirements.................................................................... 12

3.2.

Choice of the architecture: process and methodology. .............................................. 13

3.2.1. Architecture selection process.................................................................................... 13

3.2.2.

Final recommendation: Hybrid architecture with no data in
the National Interface................................................................................................. 13

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

Functionalities ............................................................................................................ 14

General approach ....................................................................................................... 14

List of SIS II functionalities....................................................................................... 15

Use of biometrics ....................................................................................................... 15

2

 
5.

6.

6.1.

6.2.

6.3.

Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 16

Costs........................................................................................................................... 17

Outcome of the feasibility study ................................................................................ 17

Comparisons between options.................................................................................... 17

Distribution of costs ................................................................................................... 18

6.3.1. Costs linked to deploying SIS II ................................................................................ 18

6.3.2. Operating costs........................................................................................................... 19

6.4.

Project budget impact................................................................................................. 19

6.4.1.

Financial breakdown of the operating expenditures directly related to
the design, development and deployment of the SIS II ............................................. 19

6.4.2.

Financial breakdown of other operating expenditures ............................................... 20

6.4.3.

Funding of the SIS II project...................................................................................... 20

7.

7.1.

7.2.

Management and Location of SIS II .......................................................................... 21

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 21

Technical Management of SIS II ............................................................................... 21

7.2.1.

Strategic management ................................................................................................ 21

7.2.2. Operational management ........................................................................................... 23

7.3.

Location of the central part of SIS II ......................................................................... 24

8.

8.1.

8.2.

8.3.

8.4.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Future Visa Information system and synergies with SIS II ....................................... 25

Political context.......................................................................................................... 25

Introduction to the Visa Information System (VIS)................................................... 25

Possible Synergies with a future Visa Information system (VIS).............................. 26

Financial overview VIS.............................................................................................. 28

Legal impact............................................................................................................... 30

Data protection ........................................................................................................... 31

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 31

Annex 1: SIS II calendar January - June 2003........................................................... 33

Annex 2: Provisions schedule up to 2007.................................................................. 34

Annex 3: legislative financial statement .................................................................... 35

3

 
1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Scope of the Communication

The objective of this Communication is to:

(cid:1)  Present  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  the  second  generation  Schengen
Information System (SIS II) progress report for the activities carried out in the first half
of 20031 and future schedule2.

(cid:1)  Present an abridged version of the results of the feasibility study, which was carried out on

the setting up of a new generation of the Schengen Information System .

(cid:1)  Highlight the budgetary repercussions of SIS II, based on the detailed budget estimates of

the feasibility study.

(cid:1)  Suggest solutions for the location and future management of SIS II.

(cid:1)  Point out how synergies with a possible future Visa Information System (VIS) could be

brought about.

This  Communication  builds  upon  the  Communication  of  18  December  2001  from  the
Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament:  Development  of  the  Schengen
Information System II3.

1.2.

The Schengen Information System - From the current SIS to SIS II

1.2.1.

The current SIS

SIS is an information system that allows competent authorities in the Member States, through
an  automatic  query  procedure,  to  access  alerts  regarding  persons  and  property.  It  is  thus  a
vital  feature  in  managing  the  fields  of  security,  freedom  and  justice  for  the  Schengen  area
without  internal  borders.  It  contributes  to  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  on  the  free
movement of persons (Title IV of the EC Treaty) and to judicial co-operation (Title VI of the
EU Treaty) in criminal matters and police co-operation in that context.

1

2

3

Submitted to the Council and the European Parliament in response to the obligation of article 6 of the
Council  Regulation  n.  2424/2001  of  6  December  2001  on  the  development  of  the  second  Schengen
Information System (SIS II), OJ L 328 of 13 December 2001.
A progress report covering the second half of 2003 should be published at the beginning of 2004.
COM(2001) 720 final.

4

 
                                                
SIS currently consists of a national system4 located in each of the Contracting Parties5.  The
systems  data  file  has  to  remain  materially  identical  to  the  national  data  file6  located  in  the
national  systems  of  each  of  the  other  Contracting  Parties,  by  means  of  a  technical  support
function.  By  virtue  of  Article  92  of  the  Schengen  Convention,  implementing  the  Schengen
agreement of 14 June 1985, France is responsible for the technical support function located in
Strasbourg in a custom-built, high security environment. The Strasbourg system is also called
the C.SIS (i.e. the central part of the SIS). The support function comprises a central data file,
which  ensures,  via  on-line  transmission,  that  the  data  files  of  the  national  systems  contain
identical information. While the daily operations of the current SIS are presently managed by
France, strategic management is carried out by various Council working groups, supported by
the Council Secretariat General.

1.2.2. Need for a new generation SIS

The need for a new generation of the SIS is found in the quest for a common and integrated
security strategy in an area of free movement. SIS II is an essential instrument for maintaining
public order in an area without internal frontiers (e.g. the crossing of the external borders and
the issuance of visas and residence permits). The compatibility with other relevant - existing
or future - databases in these fields is of the utmost importance.

Demands  on  new  functions  and  new  information  types  are  continuously  being  discussed
within the decision-making bodies. In due time, some or all of these have to be included in the
features  of  the  SIS  II.  The  ability  for  SIS  II  to  be  extended  and  changed  in  these  areas  is
therefore another essential characteristic of the system.

The  current  SIS  has  the  capacity  to  deal  with  no  more  than  18  participating  states.  It  is
operational in 13 Member States and 2 other states (Iceland and Norway) and is intended to
become partially operational in the United Kingdom and Ireland in the foreseeable future. It
has,  however,  not  been  designed  to  cope  with  the  increased  number  of  EU  Member  States
after enlargement. Therefore, one of the main objectives in developing SIS II is to establish a
system  allowing  the  integration  of  new  Member  States.  Furthermore,  the  technology  of  the
present SIS is clearly outdated and does not provide the necessary flexibility for adding easily
new functionalities.

For  these  reasons  the  Council  decided  that  it  was  necessary  to  develop  a  new,  second
generation Schengen Information System (SIS II).

4

5

6

System  (or  a  set  of  systems)  located  in  the  national  domain  under  the  responsibility  of  the  national
authorities.
The  Contracting  Parties  are  countries  (in  the  future,  some  can  also  be  organisations:  Europol
for example).
Copy  of  (some  of)  the  data  stored  in  the  SIS  II  Central  System,  hosted  by  the  national  systems  and
regularly updated by the SIS II Central System.

5

 
                                                
The mandate to develop SIS II was given to the Commission in December 20017 and is for a
limited period until 31 December 2006. The responsibilities for SIS II are shared between the
Council  and  the  Commission8.  Establishing  a  clear  and  common  understanding  of  the
respective responsibilities has at times proven to be difficult.

1.3.

Development of SIS II

Without  prejudice  to  the  future  technical  architecture,  at  an  abstract  level,  SIS  II  could  be
described  as  constituting  a  central  system  surrounded  by  National  Interfaces9.  Each
Contracting Party would, by using a national interface linked to its national system, be able to
input and access data. For those states that wish to host Schengen information locally, SIS II
also comprises national data files located in their premises, kept under their responsibility and
updated by the central system.

The SIS II must fulfil the following key requirements:

(cid:1)  Scalability

The  system  must  be  designed  to  handle  more  than  twice  the  number  of  Contracting  Parties
than  the  current  SIS,  including  organisations  that  might  have  full  or  partial  access  (e.g.
Europol) to the information in the SIS.

It  must  also  be  able  to  provide  both  optional  and  mandatory  services  (e.g.  those  countries
which are ready to use a certain feature could go ahead, while those not ready to do so would
technically not be affected by this).

(cid:1)  Flexibility

The  current  SIS  includes  functions  constituting  a  defined  set  of  information  types  (persons
and objects), in accordance  with  articles 95-100 of the Schengen Convention. SIS  II  should
have the potential to handle a significantly larger number of data and, once operational, to be
extended to cope with new information types, new objects and further new functions, which
are under discussion in the Council framework.  Ideally, once it  has  been set  up,  the  system
should provide the flexibility to incorporate new functionalities, as well as new information
and rules without major technical changes. This would include the inter-linking of alerts and
the use of biometric information.

7

8

9

Council Regulation (EC) N° 2424/2001 and Council Decision 2001/886/JHA of 6 December 2001 on
the  development  of  the  second  generation  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS  II),  OJ  L  328
of 13 December 2001, p. 4.
Voir l’addendum au procès-verbal du Conseil (Justice, Affaires intérieures et Protection civile) des 6 et
7 septembre 2001 (14997/01 ADD 1).
Central System and National Interfaces form the common part of the SIS II, National Interfaces being
delivered  in  the  Contracting  Parties  premises,  and  allowing  them  to  access  to  the  SIS  II  data
and services.

6

 
                                                
(cid:1)  Uniformity

Uniformity  is  a  requirement,  since  a  more  homogenous  system,  especially  concerning
national  interfaces,  will  have  a  positive  impact  on  testing,  data  quality  and  data
integrity/security.  Other  areas  of  uniformity  could  be  sought  in  the  validation  rules  and  the
potential use of common query interfaces. In addition, uniformity will result in overall lower
system costs.
(cid:1)  Reliability

Reliability includes availability and performance. High availability is an obvious priority for
the future system. This includes the ability to ensure that data are correct, safely delivered and
not  corrupted.  An  important  aspect  of  high  availability  is  also  the  ability  to  maximise
prevention of system failure or crash and, should such an event occur despite all precautions,
the ability to recover extremely quickly.

High performance is crucial. As an example, the answer to a police request, under operational
conditions, has to be delivered within five seconds. SIS II should be able to limit the time for
the distribution of data entered by one end-user to all the other Contracting Parties.
(cid:1)  Economy

Given the potential number of new Contracting Parties and the potentially increased number
of new functions to be handled, the system must be designed to be easily manageable at both
central and national level, in order to make it as cost-effective as possible.

(cid:1)  Security

The data stored in the SIS are highly sensitive. The data are, to a large extent, personal data
derived  from  the  national  police  forces  and  other  authorities  allowed  handling  sensitive
information. The data need to be protected from a non-authorised use. Physical protection (i.e.
restricted  physical  access  to  the  site,  to  the  machine  room)  and  logical  protection  are
mandatory (limited access for read only, modification or deletion).

1.4.

Constraints and key issues

1.4.1. Constraints

The following are the main constraints for the development of the SIS II system:

(cid:1)  The tight deadline given to set up such a complex system, in which the adaptation of the

national systems remains the competence of Member States.

(cid:1)  Division of responsibilities between the Commission and Council, with boundaries that are

partly difficult to define, thus adding complexity to the decision-making process.

(cid:1)  Legacy  of  a  complex  Council  working  group  structure,  leading  to  a  potentially  slow

decision-making process as regards the necessary legal framework.

7

 
1.4.2. Key issues

(cid:1)  Architecture: the architecture of an  IT system means the way that physical and  logistical
items  (namely  hardware  and  software)  are  designed,  including  their  relationship  to  one
another. The architecture of a system always defines its broad outlines,  and also partially
defines  precise  mechanisms.  Since  it  is  not  possible  to  start  implementing  an  IT  system
without  knowledge of its architecture,  a  decision  on  the  architecture  must  be  taken  at  an
early stage.

(cid:1)  Functionalities: these are the functional requirements that SIS II has to provide in order to
allow the Contracting Parties and end-users to match the SIS objectives. It is not possible
to  implement  an  IT  system  without  informing  the  contractor  about  what  the  system  is
supposed to do. The decision on the general functionalities must be taken at an early stage
of any IT project.

(cid:1)  Synergies: at the request of the Council, possible synergies with the VIS (Visa Information
System)  have  been  examined.  This  was  done  in  the  framework  of  a  feasibility  study  for
VIS,  which  contained  recommendations  on  synergies  that  might  lead  to  substantial
savings, especially in the long term.

(cid:1)  Financing: the feasibility study provided financial figures for the implementation of SIS II
e.g. design, development and roll-out of the system, including hardware. The costs of the
management of the system are also specified. The provisional budget estimates have been
readjusted  in  the  light  of  these  figures  and  the  financial  statement  attached  to  this
Communication updated accordingly.

(cid:1)  Location and management of the central system: taking into account the political and legal
situation of the current SIS and SIS II, as well as the operational requirements of SIS II, an
assessment must be made as regards the appropriate arrangements concerning location and
the management of the central system.

2.

PROGRESS REPORT

This report is the second10 provided by the Commission services in accordance with Article 6
of  Council  Regulation  N.  2424/2001  of  6  December  2001.  The  report  aims  to  provide  a
description of the work carried out by the Commission services for the first half of 2003.

2.1.

Results  achieved  (January-June  2003)  and  the  way  forward  (July-December
2003)

The  main  steps  undertaken  were  described  in  detail  in  the  Commission  working  paper:
Progress  Report  2002  on  the  development  of  the  second  generation  Schengen  Information
System (SIS II).

10

The first report, submitted in early 2003, covered the whole of 2002.

8

 
                                                
2.1.1. Main activity: feasibility study

The  SIS  II  feasibility  study,  as  explained  in  the  July-December  2002  Progress  Report,  was
divided into three steps:
(cid:1)  Assessment  of  the  strategic  approach  for  SIS  II,  carried  out  in  2002  and  detailed  in  the

July-December 2002 Progress Report.

(cid:1)  Technical, feasibility and security reports on a number of architectural options which could

be feasible for SIS II, carried out from October 2002 to April 2003.

(cid:1)  Draft of a blueprint of the technical requirements carried out from May to June 2003.

After receipt of the first version of  the  reports (feasibility,  technical and security  reports) in
January  2003,  and  close  study  by  the  Commission  and  the  SIS  II  Committee,  the  SIS  II
Committee gave  a favourable opinion on the proposed architecture and the final versions of
the  reports  were  sent  to  the  Council  on  2  May,  in  order  to  prepare  the  political  decision-
making process in the different working groups.

In an additional contract signed in April 2003, the Commission asked the contractor to study
the feasibility of the following features:

(cid:1)  Moving some of the National Interface intelligence to the central part.

(cid:1)  A direct query function on the central database, based on additional information provided

by the Member States.

(cid:1)  Possible synergy between the SIS and VIS projects. The aim was to analyse the conditions
for a synergy and to estimate the impact on the network and on each studied architecture.

The output of this additional study was presented to the SIS II Committee in June 2003.

The “Draft of a blueprint of the technical requirements” step had to be postponed in order to
take  into  account  the  conclusions,  adopted  in  the  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  of  5/6
June  2003,  regarding  architecture  and  functionalities.  The  draft  blue  print  of  the  technical
requirements report was delivered in July 2003.

2.1.2. Current activity: preparation of the call for tender

In  order  to  deliver  the  system  as  quickly  as  possible,  the  Commission  services  started  the
preparation of the call for tender in February 2003.

A  prior  information  notice  was  published  in  the  S  series  of  the  Official  Journal  of  the
European  Union  in  March  200311  aiming  at  informing  potential  tenderers  that  a  major  IT
project in the field of EU Justice and Home Affairs was under preparation.

After the Council has given orientations, in its conclusions of June 2003, on the architecture
and  functionalities  of  the  new  system,  the  Commission  published  a  contract  notice  in  the  S
series  of  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union12.  The  call  for  tender  is  restricted.  All
interested  economic  operators  could  ask  to  take  part  but  only  candidates  satisfying  the
selection criteria are being invited to submit a tender.

11

12

OJ, 2003/562-053772.
OJ, 2003/S 119-106332.

9

 
                                                
The  candidates  invited  to  submit  a  tender  have  been  selected  and  the  successful  candidates
will be invited to submit their tenders by spring 2004. The evaluation of the tenders and the
award  of  the  contract  will  be  finalised  in  August  2004.  The  signature  of  the  contract  is
planned for September 2004.

2.1.3. Next steps

As regards the timetable, the feasibility study stated that the tight deadline of 2006, given in
the mandate received from the Council in 2001, was still feasible for the selected architecture,
provided that the main deadlines listed below were adhered to.

(cid:1)  June 2003 – Definite list of functionalities and decision on the architecture,

(cid:1)  August 2003 – Launch of the SIS II call for tender,

(cid:1)  June 2004 – Signature of the contract for the detailed design and development of SIS II and

subsequent draft of the detailed design,

(cid:1)  January 2005 – Commence SIS II development,

(cid:1)  Spring 2005 – Commence Contracting Parties national system adaptation,

(cid:1)  Autumn 2006 – Commence migration of current Contracting Parties,

(cid:1)  End  2006  –  Ready  for  integration  of  new  Contracting  Parties  (the  issue  of  whether
acceding countries could integrate in parallel with current Parties is still under discussion).

The  feasibility  study  clearly  pointed  out  that  any  delay  in  any  of  the  milestones  mentioned
above will render the deadline of 2006 impossible to meet.

Given  that  throughout  autumn  2003,  difficulties  were  encountered  to  fit  the  budgetary
requirements  for  SIS  II  as  they  result  from  the  feasibility  study  into  the  tight  budgetary
framework  available  especially  in  2005,  the  call  for  tender  could  not  be  launched  in  late
August 2003 as initially foreseen. Final clarity on budgetary availability was only achieved in
November 2003 and therefore the call for tender can only be launched in December 2003.

This implies that the initial planning to  have  the  complete  system operational  by the end of
2006 cannot be kept. System availability is still planned for the end of 2006 and readiness for
migration and integration during the first half of 2007 including three additional months as a
safety margin in case some delay would occur in the detailed design and development phase
of the system.

10

 
2.1.4.

SIS II Committee

The  SIS  II  Committee  convened  for  the  first  time  in  January  2002.  It  is  composed  of
representatives of the Member States, and follows the management or regulatory procedure -
depending  on  the  measures  at  stake  -  as  prescribed  in  the  Council  Regulation  and  Council
Decision  of  6  December  2001  on  the  development  of  SIS  II13.  This  Committee  meets  on  a
monthly basis. Iceland and Norway14 take part in these meetings as observers.

The importance  of  the work of the  SIS  II  Committee  throughout  the  feasibility  study  phase
must  be  stressed  since  Member  States  were  given  the  opportunity  to  submit  their  written
comments  for  each  version  of  the  reports  and  thereby  assisted  the  contractor  in  addressing
their concerns.

Member States expressed strong interest in continuing to work on the issues that would allow
keeping  the  tight  schedule.  The  SIS  II  Committee  agreed  to  organise  additional  specific
workshops for the preparation of the call for tender. Considering the necessity for carrying out
further  intensive  work  with  effect  from  autumn  2003,  the  SIS  II  Committee  also  agreed  to
hold 2-days Committee Meetings.

2.1.5.

Involvement of the Acceding Countries

One of the main reasons for developing SIS II is to deliver a system allowing the integration
of  new  Member  States.  It  must  be  possible  for  them  to  fully  participate  in  the  Schengen
acquis  and  then  also  in  SIS  II  as  quickly  as  possible  after  the  date  of  their  accession.
Therefore, they need to be properly involved, and this in good time.

As  outlined  in  the  Commission  Communication  of  18  December  2001,  this  involvement
commenced  with  an  information  phase.  A  preparatory  meeting  for  the  Permanent
Representations was held on 18 April 2002, followed by the first TAIEX15 Seminar on 6 June
2002, and a further information session on 13 December 2002.

As planned, an additional TAIEX Seminar, to be held towards the end of the feasibility study,
took place on 9 April 2003. The aim of this meeting was to update Acceding Countries on the
latest  developments,  results  and  recommendations  of  the  feasibility  study.  In  addition,  the
seminar served to familiarise Acceding Countries with the tasks and working methods of the
SIS II Committee and the Council Working Groups.

The Acceding Countries were  welcomed  to the Committee Meeting  for the  first time on  14
May  2003  as  observers.  This  status  allows  them  to  be  informed  and  to  participate  in  the
general  debate.  This  process  also  informs  them  about  possible  dates  for  their  integration,
provided they are legally and technically ready. Their respective national plans for preparing
the national systems to interface with the SIS II will then need to be established.

13

14

15

Article 4 and 5 of the Council Regulation 2424/2001 and Article 4 and 5 of Council Decision 2001/886.
Following an exchange of letters, because they are associated with the implementation and development
of the Schengen acquis.
Technical Assistance Information EXchange office

11

 
                                                
2.1.6. Commission project management

A Project Management Board was set up in October 2002 to share in-house knowledge with
other  Commission  services,  such  as 
the  Informatics  Directorate  of  Personal  and
Administration, Enterprise and Information Society Directorates General, in order to take into
account possible synergies within the Commission.

A new unit "Large-scale information systems"  was created  within  DG  JAI on 16 December
2002. Part of its mandate is to exploit synergies between the major IT projects in the Justice
and  Home  Affairs  policy  areas:  SIS  II,  EURODAC  and  VIS  (Visa  Information  System).
Within this newly created unit, a "SIS team" is particularly assigned and committed to the SIS
II project.

In order to ensure maximum transparency of the work conducted by the Commission services,
since  the  beginning  of  2003  a  representative  of  the  Presidency  representing  the  Member
States has been systematically invited to participate in the Project Management Board.

In  April  2003,  a  contract  for  external  assistance  and  advice  was  renewed  with  a  major  IT
consultancy. The contract had originally been signed in April 2002, following an open call for
tender procedure. The contractor provides technical advice on the  project and  guarantees an
external independent quality control.

Four  new  staff  have  joined  or  are  about  to  join  the  SIS  II  team  -  consisting  of  three
Commission officials (2 A and 1 B grade) and one national seconded expert. These additional
posts will be devoted to strengthening the team for the following tasks: preparation of the call
for tenders, drafting of technical and functional specifications for the development of SIS II,
co-ordination  of  national  preparations,  data  protection  aspects  and  network  analysis,
administrative support.

3.

ARCHITECTURE

3.1.

SIS II Requirements

3.1.1. General requirements

In order to ensure coherence and continuity with work already undertaken within the Council
structure,  the  Commission  has  drafted  the  technical  requirements  for  SIS  II  on  the  basis  of
discussions  that  had  already  taken  place  in  the  Council  prior  to  the  Commission  being
entrusted with the development of SIS II.

The  main  technical  strategic  requirements  (scalability,  flexibility,  uniformity,  reliability  and
economy) have been explained above, under paragraph 1.3.

3.1.2.

Relative weightings of the requirements

The feasibility  study  concluded that,  of  all  key  requirements,  four  were  particularly  crucial.
They  are  scalability,  system  management,  security  and  the  ability  to  implement  the  chosen
architecture in due time. These have been taken into special consideration during the decision-
making process for choosing architecture.

12

 
3.2.

Choice of the architecture: process and methodology.

3.2.1.

Architecture selection process

The feasibility study initially identified a large number of architectural options for SIS II.

Thirteen  architectural  options  were  presented  and  differed  in  the  following  respects:  the
locations where data could be stored (centrally, de-centrally, or in the national systems of the
Contracting  Parties), the way  data types (text,  multimedia, etc.)  could be  dealt  with  and  the
way in which data could be split up, according to ownership. Consequently, they also differed
in processing and communication methods.

The  architectural  options  were  evaluated  considering  SIS  II  current  and  new  functionalities
and  the  key  requirements  as  set  out  above.  In  addition,  a  preliminary  cost  evaluation  was
made for SIS II and the impact on schedule and Member States.

After  narrowing  down  the  possible  architectures  to  three,  the  feasibility  study  further
examined  them  in  detail,  addressing  strategic  requirements.  Under  all  three  options,  the
central  reference  data  file  contains  all  Schengen  data.  The  difference  between  the
architectures is the presence or not of data in the national interface:

(cid:1)  'decentralised architecture': only Schengen alphanumerical data in the national interface,

(cid:1)  'hybrid  architecture  with  all  data  in  the  national  interface':  all  Schengen  data  in  the

national interface, including the large biometrics data,

(cid:1)  'hybrid  architecture  with  no  data  in  the  national  interface':  no  data  in  the  national

interface.

The  options  are  rather  similar,  in  terms  of  the  services  provided.  The  greatest  difference
between each option relates to the inclusion or exclusion of data sets in the National Interface.
The  decentralised  option  includes  only  character  data  in  the  National  Interface.  The  hybrid
option  includes  either  all  data  in  the  National  Interface  (i.e.  all  character,  multimedia  and
especially,  biometric  data,  etc.)  or  no  data  in  the  National  Interface,  thereby  making  the
National Interface a sort of pass-through system.

3.2.2.

Final recommendation: Hybrid architecture with no data in the National Interface

The feasibility study makes the following recommendation based on the previous criteria:

II 

“SIS 
and a National Interface delivered as an RTS16 without data storage”.

should  comprise  a  Central  System  with  all 

required 

functionalities

This option received a favourable opinion of the SIS II Committee. In this option, all data are
stored centrally. The National Interfaces store no Schengen data and are little more than “pass
through” interfaces. The Contracting Parties may store the data in their national systems (and
so use and query the national data file), but may also choose to use and query SIS II directly.

16

Readymade turnkey solution: elements (hardware and software) developed centrally, e.g. the National
Interfaces  (NIs),  completely  ready  to  use  and  managed  from  the  Central  System  avoiding  any  major
involvement of users.

13

 
                                                
This option, with all data in the Central System and no data in the National Interfaces, allows
for  easy  extensibility17.  The  required  and  desired  changes  can  be  dealt  with  at  one  central
node in a highly controlled manner.

Since  changes  are  dealt  with  at  central  level,  system  and  version  management,  software
upgrading and parameter changes are best handled by the selected option.

The feasibility study carefully analysed scalability, with respect to both the inclusion of new
Member States and increased data sets and querying. The selected option avoids the problems
of adding new Member States (given the estimated and extrapolated usage that is foreseen due
to  the  addition  of  more  than  30  new  countries)  and  new  data  formats  (e.g.  fingerprints  and
pictures), even at peak hours.

Migration to this option is slightly easier, but preparation for migration must be started well
before 2005.

Other aspects,  such as schedule,  security  and  product  maturity/market  availability  were  less
discriminatory and comparable for all three architectural options.

4.

FUNCTIONALITIES

4.1.

General approach

One of the key elements for adhering to the tight deadline is the timely launch of the call for
tender.  At  its  meeting  of  16  January  2003,  the  SIS-SIRENE  Working  Group  agreed  on  the
approach of separating legal and political discussions on functionalities from a list of definite
and  potential  high  level  functionalities  that  were  approved  by  the  Council  in  June  2003  in
order to to provide guidance to the future contractor.

17

Capacity of the system to implement quickly new components and new functionalities.

14

 
                                                
This approach does not imply the removal of any flexibility during the development phase of
the  system.  Definite  functionalities  would  be  activated  from  the  beginning,  whereas  the
activation  of  potential  functionalities  would  only  occur  once  political  agreement  has  been
reached. However, in order not to modify the perimeter of the project during the development
phase,  a  course  which  would  inevitably  delay  the  schedule,  such  agreements  have  to  be
reached by June 2004 at the latest for those potential functionalities that  the Member States
would  like  to  see  implemented  from  the  beginning.  If  this  is  not  the  case,  they  will  not  be
implemented before the migration of all Member States has been affected.

this  context, 

In 
functionalities
(e.g.  the  interlinking  of  alerts)  might  trigger  the  need  to  establish  new  or  to  revise  existing
SIRENE procedures.

it  should  be  pointed  out 

introducing  new 

that 

4.2.

List of SIS II functionalities

The list of SIS II functionalities contains the existing18 and the potential new functionalities.
As  regards  the  new  functionalities,  general  indications  were  given  in  the  JHA  Council
conclusions of June 2003. These functionalities are currently being discussed in the Council.
The  new  functionalities  that  should  be  operational  at  the  launch  of  the  system  should  be
identified at the latest by June 200419. This is the case, for example, of the links between types
of  alerts  and  the  practical  conditions  for  storing  photographs  and  fingerprints  of  wanted
persons.

Finally, even if some of the potential functionalities mentioned in the Council conclusions of
June 2003 will still need to be discussed later, SIS II will provide the technical flexibility to
allow their implementation at a later stage, should a decision on them been taken. This could
be the case for new categories of persons and objects under Articles 99 and/or 100.

4.3.

Use of biometrics

From a police operational point of view, introducing biometric identification tools into SIS II
would significantly improve the SIS II capacity to identify a person.

The existing SIS  is based on the situation in  the  late  eighties,  when  technology  was  not  far
enough advanced to allow the handling of any kind of digital images or biometric data on a
permanent basis.

18

19

Voir  également  les  projets  de  décision  et  de  règlement  émanant  du  Royaume  d’Espagne  concernant
l’attribution  de  certaines  fonctions  nouvelles  au  Système  d’Information  Schengen,  y  compris  dans  le
cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme (JO C 160 du 4 juillet 2002, p. 5 et s.)
Before the signature of the contract which is planned for September 2004.

15

 
                                                
Moreover,  law  enforcement  authorities  are  faced  with  more  and  more  difficulties  related  to
person identity checks and entry control. There are important operational problems, which can
no longer be solved by a simple name search:

(cid:1)  Persons who know or assume they are stored in the SIS will try to hide their real identity
by  using  false  names  (e.g.  aliens  subject  to  expulsion  decisions).  Even  if  the  travel
document produced is genuine, a SIS check using only a name search will fail.

(cid:1)  Assuming that a person has been apprehended using a false document, the real identity is
unknown. With the current SIS functionality it is impossible to establish that the person is,
for example, a wanted person and stored in the SIS under another identity.

(cid:1)  Multiple hits for a person with a common name (e.g. Schultze, Dupuis and basically any
common family name) occur and make it  very difficult to  identify the person concerned.
Citizens  of  countries  with  a  traditionally  more  limited  variety  of  family  names  (e.g.
Bulgaria) might be particularly  affected. This leads to potentially embarrassing situations
for finally innocent persons and to ensuing operational and legal problems.

A bilateral exchange of biometric data could be started now via the SIRENE offices. However
the  growing  number  of  Schengen  partners  excludes,  from  a  practical  point  of  view,  such
multiple exchanges for those cases. In addition, the reliability of results would be doubtful.

This  explains  why  the  biometric  identification  or  the  query  on  biometric  data  is  clearly  the
appropriate  solution  for  person  identification.  Should  there  be  no  firm  decision  on  this
functionality  before  the  call  for  tender,  SIS  II  must  be  designed  and  prepared  for  biometric
identification to be implemented easily at a later stage, once the legal basis, allowing for the
activation of such potential functionalities, has been defined. The advantage of designing the
system now allows the choice and share of standards with other projects (e.g. VIS), easing the
activation process in the future.

5.

SCHEDULE

The provisional schedule included in the SIS II 2002 Progress Report has been scrutinised and
amended within the framework of the feasibility study. Draft versions of the overall schedule
were  presented  to  the  SIS  II  Committee  from  January  to  April.  Finally,  a  specific  planning
workshop was organised in May 2003 with the Member States and the Acceding Countries.

The latest version of the schedule is included in the annex of this Communication. It enables
the  Member  States to prepare  and  carry  out  their  call  for  tender  procedures  respecting  their
own national constraints.

The  schedule  also  takes  into  account  the  willingness  of  the  Member  States  to  gradually
migrate  towards  SIS  II.  In  the  conclusion  of  the  May  SIS  II  Committee  meeting,  the
delegations  expressed  their  wish  to  migrate  to  SIS  II  only  when  they  are  all  individually
ready. By the end of May 2003, this approach was preferred to an overnight migration, which
would have forced all Member States to be ready at the same time. In the meantime, various
alternative scenarii are being considered and so far no final conclusion has been reached.

16

 
The  agreement  on  a  gradual  migration  offers  the  advantage  of  allowing  the  integration  of
Acceding  Countries  earlier,  even  if  some  Member  States  still  need  to  be  migrated.  The
minimum  number  of  migrated  Member  States  to  be  connected  to  SIS  II  before  Acceding
Countries can migrate can be decided in the SIS II Committee at a later stage.

The  consequence  of  gradual  migration  is  that  those  Member  States  not  ready  in  2006  will
continue the migration process in the first half of 2007.

The  definite  approach  to  migrate  the  Member  States  and  integrate  the  Acceding  Countries
remains open until spring 2004 given that the successful tenderer can also propose alternative
solutions.

A  consensus  on  the  programme  was  achieved  by  taking  into  account  the  compatibility
between the schedules of the Commission and the Member States. Nevertheless, some of the
Member States still have doubts about the ability to implement the project on time.

6.

COSTS

6.1.

Outcome of the feasibility study

The initial estimates for the development, made in the first Commission Communication20 to
the Council and Parliament, amounted to 15,9 Million € for 2004-2006. As stated at that time,
this was only a first indication, as the financial figures depend very much on the structure and
content of the system to be delivered.

The results of the feasibility study indicated that it would be necessary to invest a maximum
of 28 Million € for the recommended option, which would also be 5 Million € cheaper than
the other two possible options. This financial figure also includes the costs for the storage and
exchange, but not for the query, of biometric data (fingerprints and pictures). The increase is
mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  the  concept  of  the  Business  Continuity  System  (BCS)  was  not
taken into account in the previous estimates.

The  chosen  architecture  option  requires  a  high  availability  and  robustness,  to  be  achieved
through specific implementation measures, such as doubled hardware and software, as well as
data replication. The  SIS  II  capacity  to be  highly  available, including the  possibility  for  the
Member  States  to  query  the  central  SIS  II  database,  allows  those  Member  States  which  are
ready to do so to discard their national database. The added value of such a feature is that the
yearly costs for the management and maintenance of the national database will be reduced for
those Member States able to do so.

These  costs  also  include  a  limited  support  that  the  successful  tenderer  will  offer  to  the
Member  States.  The  aim  is  to  provide  assistance  to  the  Member  States  during  the  national
preparation and migration phase.

6.2.

Comparisons between options

System development costs are similar for all three options analysed in detail in the feasibility
study.  The  largest  part  of  the  costs  is  the  national  cost,  which  will  be  related  to  the
implementation and migration of Member States to the National Interface.

20

COM(2001) 720 final.

17

 
                                                
System management costs, both for the Central System as well as for the National Interface,
are lowest for the selected option (28 Million  € compared  to 33 Million €  for the discarded
options).  The  28  Million  € 
in  30
locations/Migration; Licences; Hardware.

Implementation;  Roll-out 

the  First 

include: 

Network costs are slightly higher for the chosen architecture, since more network capacity is
needed, in order to answer requests from end-users. The expectations are, however, that cost
for the network will decrease considerably in the near future, due to the improvement of new
technologies, unlike costs related to system management.

Most  of  the  future  costs  will  be  related  to  the  management  of  the  changes  that  SIS  II  will
create.  It therefore makes most sense to opt for the chosen  architecture with as little  system
management as possible, and to make a trade-off with respect to network costs.

The  yearly  costs  are  also  minimal  for  the  recommended  option.  These  costs  start  from  5.5
Million € to more than 6.5 Million € for the discarded options and include network, hosting,
production and maintenance, new versions, releases and licences.

The economic impact for development at national level is identical for all three architectures.

The national cost can vary depending on which functionalities are to be implemented and also
depending  on  the  infrastructure  currently  in  use  in  each  Member  State.  The  national  costs
must be estimated by Member States taking account of whether current national data files are
to be discarded or not. At first glance, retention of the national data file would appear to be
cheaper. However, the  yearly cost could be constantly higher. On the other hand, reviewing
the infrastructure by discarding the national file, even if expensive at the outset, would then
reduce significantly the yearly costs, resulting in substantial overall savings.

6.3.

Distribution of costs

This  section  considers  the  distribution  of  costs  for  SIS  II  between  the  Community  and  the
Member States.

6.3.1. Costs linked to deploying SIS II

The SIS II project overall consists of the following components:

(cid:1)  The common part to be deployed by the Commission. This includes:

– 

Development  of  the  common  part  of  SIS  II,  estimated  at  €28  million  and
consisting  of  supplying  a  complete  package  (hardware  and  software)  –  the
central  system,  geographically  distributed  (the  high  degree  of  accessibility  of
the  central  system  depends  on  the  geographical  distribution  of  central  units)
and national interfaces.

Development costs should be borne by the Community budget.

18

 
– 

Use  of  a  European  network  infrastructure  for  interconnection  between  the
Member States and the central system and for interconnection between the sites
of which the central system consists. There are currently three possibilities: use
the IDA programme’s future TESTA III network, or use the SISNET network
currently  used  for  SIS  I+,  or  combine  the  two  for  the  sake  of  maximum
accessibility of the system overall.
The  costs  involved  in  deploying  the  TESTA  network  are  already  covered  by
the Community budget.

(cid:1)  Adaptation of existing national systems prior to linking them up to the common part.

The  Member  States  must  find  the  budget  needed  for  these  adaptations  to  their  national
systems to link them up to SIS II (via national interfaces).

The distribution of costs set out here matches the scope of the responsibility conferred on the
Commission by  the  mandate  received  from  the  Council:  the  Commission  is  tasked  with
deploying  the  common  system.  This  common  system  has  been  defined  by  the  SIS  II
Committee as being delimited by and  including  the national  interfaces  to be  installed in  the
Member States.

The Member States are to bear the cost of all activities related to national systems up to the
interconnection with the national interface.

6.3.2. Operating costs

Once  SIS  II is  operational,  operating  costs  could  be  by  a  similar  approach  to  that  taken  for
making  it  available:  the  Community  budget  for  operating  the  common  part  and  national
budgets for national systems linked to SIS II by the national interface.

Communication costs should also be distributed between the Member States.

A corresponding legal basis needs to be established.

6.4.

Project budget impact

The Commission provided a first financial  assessment for  the  whole  project  (2002-2006)  in
the financial annex to its Communication21, anticipating that the financial implications would
also  depend  on  the  structure  and  content  of  the  system  to  be  put  in  place.  It  therefore  also
stated that the feasibility study would allow for additional elements to confirm the figures in
that financial annex. Considering the above, it is now necessary to propose an adjustment to
the  initial  financial  assessment  budget  previsions  for  2003-06.  Details  are  given  in  the
financial statement annexed.

6.4.1.

Financial  breakdown  of  the  operating  expenditures  directly  related  to  the  design,
development and deployment of the SIS II

21

COM(2001) 720 final.

19

 
                                                
The  SIS  II  project  consists  of  designing  and  deploying  the  project,  the  integration  of
Contracting Parties and providing them with adequate support. If the first task can be clearly
and  separately  identified  as  the  first  step  of  the  project,  the  other  tasks  could  overlap  each
other,  depending  on  the  methodology  used  by  the  contractor.  This  implies  that,  from  a
contractual point of view, the project can be seen as being composed of two contract phases,
design and implementation, planned to cover the 2004 and 2005-2006 periods, respectively.

In  accordance  with  the  planned  timetable,  Commission  services  will  prepare  one  contract
covering both contract phases. From a budgetary point of view, the award of the contract is
dependent on the availability of the budget for Contract Phase I. The launch of Contract Phase
II will be subject to a decision to be taken by the Commission at the end of Contract Phase I.
The  Commission  will  thereby  consider  the  results  of  Contract  Phase  I  and  the  budgetary
availability for Contract Phase II.

The consequence of such an approach is that the commitments initially planned to be spread
over  2005  and  2006  (contract  phase  II)  need  to  be  available  at  the  latest  from  2005.  The
annexed financial statement has been adapted subsequently.

6.4.2.

Financial breakdown of other operating expenditures

In the light of the results of the feasibility study, additional resources which are necessary for
additional studies have been identified for a global amount of 2.35 Million €. These additional
resources  will  cover  necessary  additional  studies  and  will  be  used  to  acquire  specialised
expertise  in  some  specific  domains  (in  particular  security,  network  and  technical  project
assistance). This expertise is indispensable in IT project management.

6.4.3.

Funding of the SIS II project

The feasibility study stated that a maximum of 28 Million € are necessary for the design and
development process of SIS II, compared to the original amount22, i.e. 16.4 Million € (minus
0.5 Million € related to the feasibility study, i.e. 15.9 Million €).

The  difference  between  the  Commission  Communication  provisional  financial  estimate  and
the  feasibility  study  is  therefore  12.1  Million  €  plus  the  2.35  Million  €  identified  for
additional studies and expertise.

Bearing in mind  the margin  on  the  financial  perspectives  in  heading  3  for  the  period  2003-
2006,  the  Commission  will  spread  the  supplementary  amount  of  14.45  Million  €.  The  12.1
Million € related to the development are spread over 2003-2005 and the 2.35 Million € over
the whole period.

A  global  commitment  will  be  made  in  2003  and  2004  in  the  sense  of  Article  92  of
Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) N° 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002.

22

COM(2001) 720 final

20

 
                                                
7.

MANAGEMENT AND LOCATION OF SIS II

7.1.

Introduction

The future  legal  basis  for  SIS  II  must  determine  responsibility23  for  the  management  of  the
system  once  it  is  operational,  that  is  to  say  when  the  Commission  has  completed  its
development. Technical management of the system raises a number of questions.

7.2.

Technical Management of SIS II

Generally  speaking,  from  a  technical  point  of  view,  IT  systems  require  two  sorts  of
management functions:

(cid:1)  Strategic  management  (decisions  on  how  to  integrate  new  functionalities,  migration

strategy, procurement, contract management etc.)

(cid:1)  Operational  management  (daily  running  of  the  hardware  and  software,  service

continuity, providing physical security etc.)

Operational and strategic management can be separated both organisationally and physically.
However, since operational management requires continuous on-site presence, the  choice of
operational  management  should  be  addressed  together  with  the  question  of  the  system
location.

7.2.1.

Strategic management

Currently, the Council carries out the strategic management of SIS.

As regards strategic management, three possibilities should be examined:
(cid:1)  Strategic Management by the Council (status quo)
(cid:1)  Strategic Management by Commission services
(cid:1)  Strategic Management by an agency or agency-related structure

7.2.1.1. Strategic Management by the Council (status quo)

The strategic management structure of the current SIS is explained by the intergovernmental
legacy  of  the  SIS,  i.e.  the  institutional  framework  in  which  the  Schengen  Convention  had
originally been conceived.

In  practice,  strategic  management  of  the  SIS  has  been  hampered  by  the  relatively  slow
decision-making process in a Council framework not designed for the strategic management
of IT systems. The fact that SIS is a cross-pillar instrument has further complicated matters.
In addition, according to institutional logic and the provisions of the treaties, after integration
of  Schengen  matters  into  the  Community  framework,  executive  tasks  such  as  the  strategic
management of IT systems should not be dealt with within the Council framework.

23

See point 9.

21

 
                                                
7.2.1.2. Strategic Management by Commission services

Although the strategic management of large-scale IT systems is a field in which Commission
services  have  gained  significant  experience  over  recent  years,  it  is  highly  unlikely  that
strategic management of a system, the only users of which are Member States and authorised
participating  States,  would  be  entrusted  to  the  Commission  only,  even  if  assisted  by  a
committee.  In  addition,  the  current  internal  organisation  of  the  Commission  (with  different,
policy  sector  related  Directorates-General)  would  not  allow  for  a  centralised  strategic
management of large-scale IT systems in different policy sectors, enabling economies of scale
and synergies.

Strategic  Management  of  SIS  II  by  Commission  services  alone  is,  therefore,  also  not  a
realistic option.

7.2.1.3. Strategic Management by an agency or agency-related structure

One  possibility  would  be  to  establish  an  executive  agency  specifically  responsible  for
managing large-scale information systems. Such an option might include - in order to reach a
“critical mass” of  IT systems the management of which  might  create sufficient  synergies to
justify the substantial initial investment linked to the creation of an agency - the necessity to
look  at  the  possible  management  of  large-scale  IT  systems  in  areas  other  than  Justice  and
Home Affairs and currently managed by the Commission on behalf of Member States. As an
example,  entrusting  such  an  agency  with  the  management  of  certain  infrastructure  services
operated  under  the  IDA  programme,  such  as  the  network  for  interadministrative  data
exchanges  (TESTA),  should  be  explored.  This  might,  however,  have  repercussions  for  the
management structure, which will need to be assessed carefully.

An  executive  agency  would  be  able  to  provide  a  framework  not  only  for  the  Schengen
Information System, but also for other present (EURODAC) and future large-scale IT systems
in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (VIS24, other future systems e.g. related to civil and
penal  co-operation)  and,  possibly,  other  policy  sectors,  allowing  synergies  and  economy  of
scale.

However, strategic management by the agency itself (i.e. its Directors) would require that the
agency would not only have the necessary sector-related knowledge itself (which is unlikely
to be the case), but would also be in a position to  take a  strategic -  thus an often  political -
autonomous decision, which would be incompatible with its executive status. Tasks requiring
discretionary  powers  in  translating  political  choices  into  action  remain  indeed  within  the
competence of the Commission25.

24

25

Visa Information System.
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  58/2003  of  19  December  2002  laying  down  the  statute  for  executive
agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes.

22

 
                                                
For  this  reason,  executive  agencies  are  strategically  steered  by  an  agency-related  Strategic
Management  structure,  i.e.  a  Director  appointed  by  the  Commission  and  a  Steering
Committee, usually composed of members designated by the Commission. . Given that such a
Steering Committee, which forms an integral part  of an  executive  agency, could  provide  an
ideal link between the executive agency, the European Institutions and SIS II users, it could
be the appropriate solution for the future strategic management of SIS II and other large-scale
IT  systems  managed  by  the  agency,  thus  creating  synergy  effects  and  a  more  streamlined
operation of large-scale IT systems, the functionalities of which might be partly interlinked.

It goes without saying that the institutional framework, and in particular the legislative powers
of  the  Council,  could  not  be  changed  by  such  a  solution,  and  that  extensive  and  regular
reporting to Council, the European Parliament and the Commission would be required.

In addition, given the importance and size of the SIS II and therefore the rather frequent need
for  strategic  decisions,  certain  routine  tasks  as  well  as  the  preparation  of  meetings  of  the
Steering Committee could be delegated to an Executive Board, chaired by the Commission.

However,  the  administrative  effort  and  cost  of  setting  up  an  executive  agency  is  not  to  be
underestimated.  Since  one  of  the  preconditions  for  the  creation  of  an  agency  is  that  “the
decision  to  outsource  tasks  must  always  be  made  on  grounds  of  good  management….  and
because  it  is  more  cost-effective  than  direct  management”26,  a  careful  analysis  of  the
budgetary  impact  (which  goes  beyond  the  remit  of  this  Communication)  must  precede  any
decision on devolution.

Once  the  creation  of  an  agency  decided,  since  the  setting-up  of  the  strategic  management
structure  would  not  necessarily  be  linked  to  the  physical  creation  of  the  agency,  a  strategic
management structure could, if necessary, even be set  up  in  the  event  that  by  the  system  is
ready,  not  all  issues  related  to  the  creation  of  an  agency  have  been  solved.  The  strategic
management  structure  (Steering  Committee  and  Executive  Board)  could  thus  precede  the
physical  creation  of  the  agency  or,  in  other  words,  be  the  "nucleus"  of  an  agency  "in  statu
nascendi".

7.2.2. Operational management

Operational management must normally be performed at the physical location of the central
part  and  can  be  carried  out  by  any  organisation  with  the  appropriate  capacity  and  which
complies with security requirements.

Although this is an area that might theoretically well be outsourced,  given the sensitivity of
the SIS data (public order and security and movement of persons) it does not seem advisable
to  outsource  core  areas  of  the  system(s)  (i.e.  the  real  data  processing)  to  a  private  firm.
Operational management of the system should thus be the key activity of a future agency (see
above). This would not exclude the possibility of private firms carrying out routine tasks such
as  technical  maintenance  (e.g.  help  desk  system),  as  is  the  case  within  certain  national
administrations.

Operational management should thus be entrusted to a future executive agency.

26

See  Communication  on  the  externalisation  of  the  management  of  Community  programmes,
COM(2000) 788 final, 13.12.2000.

23

 
                                                
However,  as  will  be  explained  below  when  discussing  location,  contrary  to  strategic
management, operational management needs to be in place during the development phase of
SIS II. Operational management during the development phase of SIS II (until 2006) is thus
linked to the location issue (see below).

The operational budgets needed after SIS II is launched will be determined at a later date in
the light of information supplied by the contractor in response to the call for tenders.

7.3.

Location of the central part of SIS II

Existing  Schengen  rules  stipulate  that  the  Schengen  Information  System  is  located  in
Strasbourg.

As regards SIS II, a decision on the location of the central part of SIS II must be taken at the
latest  by  June  2004  before  the  contract  with  the  successful  tenderer  of  the  SIS  II  call  for
tender will be signed27. In addition, contrary to the current system which does not provide a
Business Continuity System allowing a full continuation of operations in case of a complete
unavailability  of  the  main  system  (e.g.  after  a  fire),  because  of  the  high  availability
requirement  for  SIS  II,  a  second  location  for  such  a  Business  Continuity  System  must  be
found.

The current SIS is located in a highly secure, custom-built facility which was built in 1993 at
a cost of about 5 Million €. Independently of the choice of a location for any future agency
involved  in  the  operational  management,  a  similarly  secured  location  to  that  in  Strasbourg
will have to be available before September 2004. Since it will be impossible to custom-build a
location within that timeframe, unless an existing location  providing  the  same  high  level  of
security  can  be  found,  the  only  possibility  would  be  to  use  the  current  SIS  premises  in
Strasbourg  to  host  SIS  II.  Independently  of  the  installation  of  the  main  system,  adequate
premises  for  the  Business  Continuity  System  must  be  found  but  the  installation  of  the
Business Continuity System can take place later (but before mid-2005) than the installation of
the main system.

Operational management has to be agreed on at the latest in June 2004, before the contract for
SIS II will be signed with the successful tenderer following the SIS II call for tender.

Contrary to the strategic management which will have to be in place only shortly before SIS II
becomes operational, operational management will have to be in place as of September 2004
to support the Commission, charged with developing the system, in its development tasks by,
for example, preparing premises, carrying out tests etc.

Provided that it is agreed that the location of  SIS  II  will  provisionally  be  Strasbourg until a
future  agency  has  been  set  up,  the  operational  management  should  therefore  also
provisionally be entrusted to the French administration, leaving open, however, the possibility
of outsourcing some operational activities that may not be carried out by a public service.

27

It should be noted that in case the "synergy approach"  with SIS II is confirmed and VIS  will  share  a
common  technical  platform  with  SIS  II,  the  central  part  of  VIS  will  be  located  in  the  same  location
as SIS II.

24

 
                                                
In order to avoid any confusion of tasks, a clear agreement ("Service Level Agreement") will
have to be put in place between the Commission and operational management, defining who
does  what,  when  and  how.  According  to  the  decision  taken  regarding  the  location,  this
agreement  might  have  to  be  continued  (and  updated)  between  strategic  management  and
operational management once the project has passed the development phase and moves into
the operational phase. Strategic management structures will have to be set up by the start of
the  operational  phase.  The  division  of  tasks  between  operational  and  strategic  management
will also need to be defined by that time.

8.

FUTURE VISA INFORMATION SYSTEM AND SYNERGIES WITH SIS II

8.1.

Political context

Based on the  guidelines adopted by the  Council for  VIS  on  13  June  2002,  the  Commission
carried  out  a  feasibility  study,  which  provides  an  analysis  of  the  technical  and  financial
aspects  of  VIS,  including  -  following  the  mandate  of  the  guidelines  -  an  assessment  of
possible synergy effects with SIS II. The VIS feasibility study was finalised and transmitted
to the Council in May 2003.

The  Thessaloniki  European  Council  on  19  and  20  June  2003  highlighted  the  need  to  adopt
orientations  in  order  to  satisfy  the  preferred  options  with  regard  to  the  planning  for  the
development  of  the  system  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  Commission’s  feasibility  study  for
VIS.

The Thessaloniki European Council stressed that “a coherent approach is needed in the EU on
biometric  identifiers  or  biometric  data,  which  would  result  in  harmonised  solutions  for
documents  for  third  country  nationals,  passports  of  Union  citizens  and  information  systems
(VIS and SIS II)”.

8.2.

Introduction to the Visa Information System (VIS)

VIS  is  a  proposed  common  system  for  the  exchange  of  visa  data  between  Member  States.
Two  main  processes  were  identified  by  the  study:  the  storage  of  visa  data  during  the  visa
issuing process, and the consultation of these data, where and when that information is useful,
for instance at external border controls. These two processes support the objectives of VIS, as
set out in the Council guidelines:

(cid:1)  facilitate the fight against fraud,

(cid:1)  contribute  to  the  improvement  of  consular  co-operation  and  the  exchange  of  information

between central consular authorities,

(cid:1)  facilitate checks at border checkpoints or at immigration or police checkpoints,

(cid:1)  contribute to the prevention of "visa shopping",

(cid:1)  facilitate the application of the Dublin Convention,

(cid:1)  assist in the procedures for returning citizens of third countries,

25

 
(cid:1)  contribute  towards  improving  the  administration  of  the  common  visa  policy  and  internal

security, and to combating terrorism.

The  system  would  have  a  capacity  to  connect  at  least  27  Member  States,  12 000  VIS  users
and  3 500  consular  posts  worldwide.  The  study  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  20  million
visa requests would be handled annually.

Following  the  Council  guidelines,  VIS  should  comprise  a  Central  Visa  Information  System
(C-VIS)  and  a  National  Visa  Information  System  (N-VIS)  in  each  Member  State.  On  that
basis  the  study  has  assessed  two  architectural  options:  a  separate  VIS  and  a  technical
integration of VIS and SIS II in view of synergies.

Further  points  assessed  by  the  study  -  as  requested  by  the  Council  Guidelines  -  are,  in
particular,  the  communication  infrastructures  for  VIS,  the  future  development  of  the
Schengen  consultation  network  VISION,  the  interoperability  with  other  systems  and  the
categories of information to be stored and processed, namely alphanumeric data, photographs,
supporting documents and biometric identifiers.

The  Council  Guidelines  of  13  June  2002  indicated  that  “digitised  photographs  and  other
biometric data on the holder of the visa could also be entered in VIS when they are added to
the  visa  file”  .  The  study  has  assessed  three  options,  which  –  for  the  present  -  can  be
envisaged  as  biometric  identifiers:  iris  scanning,  facial  recognition  and  fingerprints.  It
recommends the latter as the primary biometric identifier and the use of facial recognition as
an  additional  verification  facility.  However,  with  the  use  of  biometrics  on  such  an
unprecedented scale, the system will enter a new and largely unknown dimension. The study
clearly indicates that this issue would have great impact on such  a system, both in technical
and financial terms.

8.3.

Possible Synergies with a future Visa Information system (VIS)

As stated in the Council Guidelines, the structure of the new VIS must be similar to that of the
existing  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS).  The  current  SIS  system  is  composed  of  a
Central System and a National System. Similarly, the VIS system  would  comprise a central
visa  information  system  (C-VIS)  and,  in  each  State,  a  national  system  (N-VIS)  with  an
interface  to  the  central  system.  The  consular  posts  and  other  national  authorities  (border
checkpoints, police and immigration authorities) would need to connect to their corresponding
N-VIS to benefit from the VIS services.

Therefore, the Visa Information System would be based on three levels:

(cid:1)  Central level, referred as the Central Visa Information System (C-VIS), under a single

responsible authority, to be decided;

(cid:1)  National  level,  for  each  Member  State,  comprising  national  systems  (National  Visa

Information System, N-VIS) and their interfaces to the C-VIS;

(cid:1)  Local level, which includes consular posts, borders crossing points, and immigration and

police authorities.

26

 
On  the  functional  level,  VIS  users  would  consult  SIS  II  during  the
issue of visa to determine whether an alert has been issued for the visa
applicant  for  the  purpose  of  refusing  entry.  Similarly,  SIS  users
(border  crossing  points,  police  and 
immigration  authorities)
connected to the SIS technical infrastructure would need to check visa
authenticity or traveller identity, as well as to identify undocumented
travellers,  and  would  thus  need  to  be  facilitated  access  to  the  new
system.

In view of the above, synergies could be envisaged between the two
systems at central level, based on the assumption that VIS and SIS II
would have a centralised architecture .

Feasible solutions for such synergy architecture are:

C-VIS

Central

SIS

N-VIS

NI

Local
level

Local
SIS

(cid:1)  Solution  1,  common  technical  platform,  aims  at  placing  both  systems  in  the  same
building,  connecting  them  to  the  same  network  through  a  single  access  point,  using  the
same technological platforms and sharing management tools and staff;

(cid:1)  Solution  2,  common  technical  platform  and  services,  introducing,  in  addition  to  the
above (solution 1), synergies at application level. Shared or common services between the
systems would be introduced.

Nevertheless in both of these solutions, data remains separated.

Synergies  will  not  affect  the  business  processes.  Both  SIS II  and  VIS  users  will  be  able  to
operate seamlessly, should the synergies be implemented. Synergies would lower the cost of
ownership of both VIS and SIS II.

In addition, other synergies could be achieved: VIS and SIS II could share a common business
continuity system at the central level with a significant reduction of costs; both projects could
be developed under a common management organisation which  could have  the oversight of
the  project  implementation,  starting  with  a  common  call  for  tender  procedure  for  both
systems.

Technical integration of VIS and SIS II at central level is recommended, due to the reduction
of total costs of investment  and operations.  In  order to  maximise  the  synergies  between  the
systems,  it  is  suggested  that  VIS  and  SIS  II  be  implemented  in  parallel  and  even  have  a
common  call  for  tender  for  both  systems.  Likewise,  it  is  advisable  that  the  project
management concerning the implementation should be assumed by a single organisation.

Apart from the obvious synergy advantages at central level, Member States can also achieve
remarkable benefits and cost savings from synergy architecture.

Thousands of end-users, which belong to police  authorities,  border  control and  immigration
services, for example, could use SIS II equipment to check visa information via the future SIS
II  infrastructure.  Additional  investment  for  dedicated  VIS  equipment  could  be  avoided  and
the daily work could be simplified and harmonised.

27

 
The information flow for SIS and VIS end-users.

Legend:
CP = Consular Post
N-VIS = National VIS
C-VIS = Central VIS
PIB LC = Local systems Police authorities and Immigration Services and Border control
NI= SIS National Interface
SIS II CS = SIS Core System, Central Level

Whatever  the  synergy  implemented,  both  Council  conclusions  of  5  and  6  of  June  and  the
Conclusion of the European Council of Thessaloniki have clearly stressed that the VIS project
must not delay the delivery of SIS II28. In their project planning, Commission services have
paid particular attention to the possibility to decouple the VIS project management from the
SIS II project management in case a delay might occur on the VIS project, thus ensuring that
such a delay would have no repercussions on the implementing schedule for SIS II.

8.4.

Financial overview VIS

The  investment  and  yearly  operational  cost  would  depend  on  the  decision  which  of  the
functionalities  were  chosen  and  which  implementation  scenario  used.  Biometrics  and
supporting  documents  functionalities  would  represent  90%  of  the  costs.  As  a  result  also  of
first  exchanges  of  views  in  the  Visa  Working  Party  and  SCIFA,  the  first  step  towards  a
common  VIS  system  should  contain  only  alphanumeric  data  and  photos.  Biometrics  and
supporting documents will follow later.

28

Extract  from  the  conclusions  of  the  Presidency,  European  Council  of  19  and  20  June  2003:  "
The European Council invites the Commission to prepare the appropriate proposals, starting with visas,
while  fully  respecting  the  envisaged  timetable  for  the  introduction  of  the  Schengen  Information
System II.

28

 
                                                
For  the  setting  up,  implementing  and  operating  of  a  separate  VIS  system,  based  on  a
centralised architecture and containing only alphanumeric data and photos, the cost estimates
are:

Prices are in €
million to three
decimal places

C-VIS

Network

N-VIS

Total Costs
Investments

Separate VIS

9.498

0.784

5.763

16.045

Operational

Costs

(Annual)

15.793

For the preferred option, when synergies are applied with the SIS II as a common technical
platform for SIS and VIS, containing only alphanumeric data and photos, the cost estimates
are:

Prices are in €
million to three
decimal places

VIS when
synergies are
applied

C-VIS

Network

N-VIS

Total Costs
Investments

Operational

Costs

(Annual)

8.959

0.422

5.763

15.144

10.636

These budget figures do not cover additional external resources to support and assist COM in
managing, controlling and set-up the project.

These estimates do not cover the investment and operational costs for the national parts of the
VIS beyond the N-VIS, in particular the costs of adapting  existing national systems and  the
envisaged world-wide connections to the consular posts and their equipment, shipping and the
necessary training of consular staff.

These  costs  could  be  spread  out  over  a  number  of  years  since  it  will  take  Member  States
several years to equip all their consular posts and to adapt their existing national visa systems.
The graph below shows the estimate of spread investment and yearly operating costs.

29

 
For  implementing  also  biometrics  and  supporting  documents  functionalities,  the  investment

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

INV
Operations

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

costs for C-VIS and the N-VIS would be almost 157 million Euro and the cost for operation
could reach 35 million Euro a year for a solution based on a common technical platform with
SIS  II.  For  a  separate  VIS  with  centralised  architecture  these  investment  costs  would  be
158 million Euro with annual operational costs of about 42 million Euro.

The  investment  cost  for  implementing  biometrics  and  supporting  documents  could  also  be
spread out over several years and it will take 5 years from the start of the implementation for
the yearly operational costs to reach the maximum.

However,  cost  estimates  are  very  difficult  in  the  fields  of  IT,  especially  with  regard  to  the
very dynamic biometric market, where dramatic price decreases are currently being observed.

It can therefore be reasonably expected that the final "price tag" will be lower than the above
estimates that reflect estimated market prices of December 2002.

9.

LEGAL IMPACT

SIS  II  will  need  a  legal  basis.  The  development  of  SIS  II  will  have  a  legal  aspect  and  the
Council  "Justice  and  Home  Affairs"  of  5  and  6  June  2003,  in  its  conclusions  on  SIS II
regarding  the  architecture  and  the  functionalities  of  SIS  II,  requested  "that  in  due  time,  the
necessary legislative provisions reflecting the principles underlying the current conclusions be
prepared for adoption".

Since the new legal texts will have to be “Amsterdam-compatible”, the development of SIS II
is  the  appropriate  occasion  to  present  new  legal  texts  to  replace  the  entire  Title  IV  of  the
Schengen  Convention.  This  will  also  allow  the  European  Parliament  to  play  its  full  role  as
regards SIS II.

As  regards  the  VIS,  it  goes  without  saying  that  despite  the  technical  synergies,  a  separate
legal framework will have to be established.

30

 
10.

DATA PROTECTION

The data-protection authorities will have to be consulted regularly on planned developments
to  SIS  II.  The  consultation  should  relate  specifically  to  the  new  functionalities  to  be
introduced  and  their  implementation  in  terms  of  categories  of  personal  data,  public
authorities’ access to the data, securing individual rights and the more general assurances to
be given. The consultation should specifically extend to the question of SIS II processing of
biometric data and photographs, cross-checking of requests and data exchanges with VIS.

The  architecture  of  the  system  envisaged  by  the  Commission  has  the  flexibility  needed  to
allow quick adjustment to new needs flowing from the data-protection rules.

The question of the physical and logical security of personal data to provide protection against
unauthorised access is an integral part and a core element of the development of the system
(see point 1.3).

11.

CONCLUSIONS

So far, work on implementing SIS II has proceeded exactly as scheduled.

All the necessary measures have been taken to ensure that the ambitious schedule is adhered
to.  But  this  depends  on  all  those  involved  in  the  project  being  highly  mobilised,  on  strict
compliance  with  intermediate  stages  defined  at  paragraph  2.1.3  and  political  decisions,  no
later than spring 2004, on additional functionalities and the location of the future system.

The  conclusions  of  the  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  in  Luxembourg  on  5  and
6 June 2003 have enabled the Commission to issue an invitation to tender for SIS II in autumn
2003 as planned.

On  the  basis  of  the  recommendations  in  the  feasibility  study,  the  opinions  of  the  SIS  II
Committee and the relevant Council Working Parties, the Council has decided to go  for  the
centralised architecture and a uniform national interface in each Member State. The national
interfaces must be supplied in the form of a standard turnkey solution (“RTS”) and will not
contain SIS data. Member  States  who  wish  to  do  so  retain  the  option  of  keeping  a  national
copy of the SIS data bank on their own responsibility alone. Those that do not wish to do so
will be able to search in the central system direct, which depends on availability, integrity and
regular updating of SIS data. Given the requisite high degree of availability, the Council has
taken  the  decision  to  install  a  back-up  system  at  a  different  place  and  to  implement  a
communications  infrastructure  offering  necessary  assurance  as  to  availability.  The  central
system and the national interfaces must, of course, be of a suitably high security level.

Regarding functional requirements, the Council has concluded that SIS II should be a “hit/no
hit” system,  with  supplementary  functionalities  over  those  that  exist  today.  Certain  of  these
supplementary  functionalities  are  already  clearly  identified  in  the  Council  conclusions,29
whereas others will have to be agreed on before the detailed analysis begins (i.e. no later than
spring 2004) if  the Member  States  want  them to be operational as soon as SIS  II  comes  on
line (links between alerts, new fields in personal descriptions, conditions for storing digitised

29

Document 9808/03 SIRIS 47 CATS 34 ASIM 31 COMIX 330.

31

 
                                                
photographs  and  fingerprints  of  wanted  persons,  etc.).  On  the  legislative  front,  the  Council
has asked for proposals to be prepared in good time for adoption.

As for the location, management and long-term financing of SIS II, the Council has asked its
relevant working parties to prepare conclusions for adoption by May 2004. The proposals for
the  establishment  of  an  agency  in  this  Communication  could  provide  a  basis  for  the
discussions  needed  to  prepare  these  conclusions,  on  which  the  possibility  of  setting  up  the
new system and starting development work will depend.

Concerning the financial aspects of the project phase itself, the feasibility study has identified
an  additional  need  for  €14.45  million  on  top  of  the  estimates  set  out  in  an  earlier
Communication.30 Likewise, the year-by-year distribution has had to be reviewed as proposed
in the financial statement annexed to this Communication.

Following the JHA Council Conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2003,31 the specifications of the VIS
system will be incorporated in the invitation to tender for SIS II, but the development of VIS
functionalities  may  begin  only  after  the  Council  decision  that  is  to  be  taken  no  later  than
December 2003.

This approach will give the Member States time for the discussions on the financial aspects of
VIS and for deciding on the biometric identifiers to be use while preserving the possibility of
synergies  between  the  two  systems.  A  second  invitation  to  tender  could  subsequently  be
issued for the biometric functionalities envisaged for the two systems.

30

31

COM(2001) 720 final, annex.
Document 9916/1/03 Rev 1 Visa 97 Comix 341.

32

 
                                                
12.

ANNEX 1: SIS II CALENDAR JANUARY - JUNE 2003

Date

Description

17 January

SIS II Committee meeting

27 January

First version of the feasibility reports

18 February

SIS II Committee meeting

19 March

SIS II Committee meeting - First day

24 March

SIS II Committee meeting - Second day. Agreement to send feasibility reports to the Council

9 April

TAIEX seminar

10 April

SIS II Committee meeting. Agreement to send security report32 to the Council

14 May

SIS II Committee meeting. Acceding Countries participation as observers

21 May

Planning workshop

12-13 June

SIS II Committee meeting

10 June

Function workshop

19 June

Interface control document workshop

32

A delivery of the feasibility study.

33

 
                                                
13.

ANNEX 2: PROVISIONS SCHEDULE UP TO 2007

Call for tender:
Publication of “Prior
information notice”

Assessment of the
Feasibility Study

Call for tender:
Invitation to
tender

SIS II operational and ready to
integrate Candidate Countries

Call for tender: Decision
on the selected offer

SIS II ready to migrate
Member States

Call for tender:

(cid:1)(cid:2)  Signature of the procurement

(cid:1)(cid:2)

contract for SIS II

Company starts working on SIS II

Call for tender: Opening of the tenders

Start of gradual migration of
Member States

End of gradual migration of
Member States

Call for tender:
Publication of “Invitation
to candidates”

The Council agrees on:
(cid:1)(cid:2) 

 Definite list of

functionalities

34

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.

ANNEX 3: LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Policy area(s): JHA

Activit(y/ies):  Cooperation  in  the  field  of  Title  IV  TEC  (visa,  asylum,  immigration  and
other  policies  to  the  free  circulation  of  persons)  and  of  Title  VI  TEU  (police  and  penal
judicial cooperation)

Title of operation: Development of SIS II System

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

Budget line(s) + heading(s)

18 08 02 – Schengen Information System (SIS II)

Overall figures

Total allocation for action (Part B): € 31.3 Million for commitment

Period of application

2003-2006

2.3.

Overall multiannual estimate of expenditure

(a)

Schedule  of  commitment  appropriations/payment  appropriations 
statement) (see point 6.1.)

(financial

€ million (to three decimal places)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Total

Commitments

4.000

10.450

15.800

1.050

Payments

1.800

4.200

13.000

12.300

31.300

31.300

35

 
Incidence  financière  globale  des  ressources  humaines  et  autres  dépenses  de

(b)
fonctionnement
(cf. points 7.2 et 7.3)

CE/CP

1.317

1.317

1.317

3.951

TOTAL a+b

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Total

CE

CP

4.000

11.767

17.117

2.367

3.117

5.517

14.317

>12.300

35.251

>35.251

2.4.

Compatibility with financial programming and financial perspective

– 

X Proposal is compatible with existing financial programming.

Proposal  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the  financial
perspective.

– 

Proposal  may  require  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Inter-institutional
Agreement.

2.5.

Financial impact on revenue:

[X] Proposal has financial impact – the effect on revenue is as follows:

The present proposal builds upon the Schengen acquis as defined in Annex A of the
Agreement signed on 18 May 1999 between the Council and the Republic of Iceland
and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those both States with the
implementation,  application  and development  of  the  Schengen  acquis33.  The  article
12(1) last paragraph lays down:

“In cases where operational costs are attributed to the general budget of the European
Community, Iceland and Norway shall share in these costs by contributing to the said
budget  an  annual  sum  in  accordance  with  the  percentage  of  the  gross  national
product  of  their  countries  in  relation  with  the  gross  national  product  of  all
participating States”.

33

OJ L 176, 10 July.99, p. 35.

36

 
                                                
Contribution from Iceland/Norway: 2.128% (estimated contributions based on 2002
figures, to be determined in accordance with the above-mentioned article)

Budget line

Revenue

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

(€ million to three decimal place)

Prior to
action

Situation following action

a) Revenue in absolute terms

0.222 0.336 0.022

b) Change in revenue

 (cid:1)

3.

Budget characteristics

Type of expenditure

New

EFTA
contribution

Contributions
from applicant
countries

Non-
comp

Diff

NO

NO

NO

4.

Legal basis

Heading in
financial
perspective

No 3

This  statement  is  not  a  financial  statement  accompanying  a  legislative  proposal  but  a
statement on the launch of a project. The development and installation of SIS II will require
the timely adoption of legislative measures.

5.

Description and grounds

5.1.

Need for Community intervention

5.1.1. Objectives pursued

The SIS is an essential tool for the proper practical operation  of free  movement for persons
within the area without controls at internal frontiers referred to in Title IV of Part Three of the
EC  Treaty.  The  current  system  devised  around  ten  years  ago  and  in  operation  since  1995,
needs to be modernized and modified to allow the participation of all the Member States after
enlargement. The necessary studies and operations need to be started in order to introduce a
second  generation  SIS.  The  expenditure  required  for  these  studies  and  operations  will  be
charged to the general budget of the European Communities.

5.1.2. Measures taken in connection with ex ante evaluation

The financial statement made in this sheet relates  to  the procurement  of technical expertise,
management expertise, hardware and software, etc. during the entire project life cycle and is
based on:

– 

-

-

initial estimates made in the Belgian-Swedish initiatives

evaluation of the consequences of the on-going work in the Council working groups;

estimates based on Commission’s guidelines and experience in IT projects;

37

 
-

-

estimates based on the outcome of a specific feasibility study on the SIS II ended in
early 2003;

experience  in  developing  and  managing  the  current  SIS  and  the  differences  that  are
foreseen or expected between the two systems. It should be noted that the SIS 1+, and
migration  to  the  SISNET  network,  has  entailed  a  total  cost  of  around  €  11  million
since the project was started. SIS II must be able to handle a much larger number of
countries, more  information  types,  larger  volumes  of  data,  stricter  security  and  must
also  offer  a  high  available  and  flexible  solution  that  can  survive  the  years  after  its
introduction when new requests for changes will occur.

The SIS II project is a large-scale project, comparable to other major Community IT projects
such  as  the  CIS34  or  the  “Transit”  system35.  The  total  amount  involved  is  higher  than  the
rough figures initially put forward in the financial statement annexed to the Belgian-Swedish
initiatives proposing a committee procedure to assist the Commission in its work, but is based
on  a  thorough  analysis  of  the  usual  needs  for  IT  projects  of  this  scale  and  importance,
especially in terms of management of the project and system development.

However  carefully  the  cost  analysis  for  the  project  has  been  carried  out,  the  figures  given
must  still  be  considered  as  working  hypothesis.  They  could  also  be  affected  by  decisions
taken  by  the  Council  (additional  functionalities,  final  choice  for  the  network  for  example)
with an impact on the project and the technical solution to be chosen for SIS II. In addition,
the tight implementation schedule might require an additional external support at the very last
stage of the project.

5.1.3. Measures taken following ex post evaluation

Because the conception and management of SIS II is the responsibility of the Member States,
there is no Community-level  ex-post evaluation.  The development of SIS  II, as proposed in
this  Communication,  will  nonetheless  take  account  of  the  experience  gained  from  the
development and management of SIS I.

5.2.

Actions envisaged and budget intervention arrangements

(cid:1)  Detailed Technical Design (Development and construction phase)

Following the Feasibility Study and the launch of a call for tender to select the supplier of the
technical  solution  (who,  under  the  responsibility  and  close  supervision  of  the  Commission,
will start setting-up  the  system),  the Detailed  Technical  Design  phase  aims  at  delivering  all
the documents needed for the development of the system. Acceptance tests will be carried out
for the delivered documents before development.

(cid:1)  System Development and Deployment

Once  the  solution  proposed  is  checked  against  the  tender  requirements  and  in  the  light  of
users’ requirements, the solution will be developed, tested and deployed. Several acceptance
actions will be performed to ensure the solution is ready before migration.

34

35

Custom Information System integrated in AFIS project (Anti Fraud Information System) developed by
the Commission.
The “Transit system”, a Customs system launched and managed by the Commission.

38

 
                                                
(cid:1)  Migration, Integration and Support

Migration  from  SIS  I  to  SIS  II,  together  with  preparations  for  integrating  the  new  Member
States, constitute the final phase  of  the  project.  Migration to  SIS  II will  be  subject to a  risk
assessment to determine whether it would be more effective to run the two systems in parallel
in a pre-operational phase or to migrate directly from SIS I to SIS II.

In addition, to ensure that the operational phase gets off to a  good  start,  the  call for  tenders
ensures that the contractor has to provide maintenance and support.

(cid:1)  Specialised technical expertise and additional studies

The  nature  of  the  project  generates  a  need  for  expertise  in  several  technical  fields,  like  for
example  biometrics,  but  also  security  and  network.  Provisions  for  additional  studies  and
external expertise are therefore necessary.

5.3.

Methods of implementation

Implementation  of  development  work  will  be  managed  directly  by  the  Commission  using
internal  and  external  resources  (auxiliary  staff  and  national  experts),  since  high-quality
technical  expertise  is required.  The Member States will  be closely involved in  the  work via
the committee that will have to be set up for this purpose.

39

 
6.

Financial impact

6.1.

Total financial impact on Part B - (over the entire programming period)

6.1.1. Operating expenditure related to development, deployment and support

Individual Commitments36 (in € million to three decimal places)

Breakdown

2004

2005

2006

[2007
and
subs.
Years]

Action 1

–  Detailed Technical

Design

Action 2

–  System Development
and Deployment

–  Migration, Integration

and Support

3.500

24.500

SUBTOTAL

3.500

24.500

Action 3

1.250

1.000

1.050

–  Specialised technical

expertise & Additional
Studies

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL

1.250

1.000

1.050

4.750

25.500

1.050

Total

3.500

24.500

28.000

3.300

3.300

31.300

36

Subject  to  the  availability  of  budgetary  credits,  global  commitments  for  a  maximum  amount  of  4
Million € and 10,45 Million € shall be made in 2003 and 2004. These global commitments shall cover
the total cost of the corresponding individual commitments up to 31 December of year n + 1.

40

 
                                                
6.2.

Calculation  of  costs  by  measure  envisaged  in  Part  B  (over  the  entire
programming period)

Commitments (in € million to three decimal places)

Breakdown

Type
of outputs
(projects, files )

Number of
outputs

Average
unit cost

(total for years
1…n)

Total cost

(total for years
1…n)

1

2

3

4=(2X3)

Action 1
- Detailed Technical
Design

Action 2
- System Development
and Delivery

- Migration,
Integration and
Support

Action 3

Specialised 
technical
expertise  &  Additional
Studies

TOTAL COST

–  Master Project Plan, Risk

Management Plan, Quality
Assurance Plan, Change
Management Plan, Security
Plan;

–  Detailed specifications
–  Interface Control Document

–  Helpdesk support to all users
–  Development, 

testing 

and

deployment on sites

–  Development, 

testing 
delivery of the simulators

and

–  Testing  plans,  tests  and  test
results  for  all  HW  and  SW
deliveries

–  All system documentation
–  Training plan

–  Migration of existing data
–  Integration of the users
–  Support to users for integration
–  Training of operational staff

–  Expertise, analysis & studies

41

31.300

 
7.

Impact on staff and administrative expenditure

7.1.

Impact on human resources

As SIS II resources are established from 2004, the impact on human and financial resources in
2005 and 2006 will be the same, and are indicated as below:

Types of post

Officials 
temporary staff

or

A

B

C

Other human resources

Staff to be assigned to management of the
action using existing and/or additional
resources

Number of
permanent posts

Number of
temporary posts

Total

Description of tasks deriving from the
action

3

1

8

12

3

1

8

12

2 A

1 national expert

4 B

1 C

Total

7.2.

Overall financial impact of human resources

Type of human resources

Amount (€)

Method of calculation *

Officials

Temporary staff

Other human resources

432,000

4 officials 108,000*4

222,000

44,000

(specify budget line)

268,000

45,000

Total

1,011,000

2 A 111,000*2

1 END 44,000

4 B 67,000*4

1 C 45,000

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

42

 
7.3.

Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action

Amount €

Method of calculation

21,850

14,400

270,000

10 missions Strasbourg 745km*10

12 missions Cand.Countries 1200*12

18 meetings UE25/year*15.000

Budget line

(number and heading)

Overall allocation (Title A7)

18 01 02 11 01 – Missions

18 01 02 11 02 – Meetings
18 01 02 11 03 – Compulsory committees 1

18 01 02 11 02 – Conferences

18 01 02 11 04 – Studies and consultations

18 01 03 11 04 – Other expenditure (specify)

Information systems (A-5001/A-4300)

Other expenditure - Part A (specify)

Total

306,250

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

1 Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.

I.

II.

III.

Annual total (7.2 + 7.3)

Duration of action (2004-2006)

Total cost of action (I x II)

€ 1,317,250

3 years

€ 3,951,750

Requirements  for  human  and  administrative  resources  will  be  met  from  within  the
appropriation allocated to each managing DG in the annual allocation procedure.

8.

Follow-up and evaluation

Every six months the Commission will present to the Council and the European Parliament a
progress report on development work for SIS II.

When the SIS  II  has become  operational, it  will be  evaluated  every  four  years to assess the
results and the effectiveness of the system.

9.

Anti-fraud measures

The Commission procedures for the award of contracts will be applied, ensuring compliance
with Community law on public contracts.

43