REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (the ‘Prüm Decision’)
Date: 2012-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Europol, cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, prevention of delinquency, terrorism

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.12.2012  
COM(2012) 732 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

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

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

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

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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

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

Although the experiences of operational1 Member States have proven the added value of the 
instrument,  some  problems  have  emerged.  Therefore  this  report,  although  focusing  on 
implementation, will also reflect on the main difficulties in the operation of the instrument. 

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

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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

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

discussions at DAPIX3 and in Prüm subgroups; 

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

contacts  and  meetings  with  lead  experts  in  DNA,  fingerprint  and  VRD  data 
exchange, with MCT and with the Prüm helpdesk4. 

1 
2 

3 
4 

For the term ‘operational’ see 2. (d). 
MCT is a Commission-funded German project aimed at supporting non-operational Member States in 
implementing the Prüm Decisions (2011 to 2013). 
Council Working Group on data protection and information exchange. 
For MCT see footnote 2; for Prüm helpdesk see point 5.2.3. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

THE INSTRUMENT 

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

On  23  June  2008,  important  parts  of  the  Convention  were  transformed  into  EU  law  when 
Council  Decision  2008/615/JHA5  was  adopted.  At  the  same  time,  the  Council  adopted 
Decision  2008/616/JHA  on  the  implementation  of  Decision  2008/615/JHA6  (together,  both 
Decisions are referred to as ‘the two Prüm Decisions’). 

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

Elements of the Prüm Decision 

The Prüm Decision consists of 4 elements: 

(a) 

Automated search of data 

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

(b) 

Information exchange for the prevention of offences 

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

(c) 

Police cooperation 

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

(d) 

Data protection 

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

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

5 
6 
7 

OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1. 
OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 12. 
This  provision  does  not  apply  to  those  Member  States  where  the  supply  of  personal  data  started 
pursuant to the Prüm Convention. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION 

DNA data 

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

Fingerprints 

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

Vehicle Registration Data 

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

Implementation of Chapters 3, 4 and 5 

All Member States except one have designated national contact points under Chapters 3 and 4 
(Articles  15  and  16).  Therefore  it  can  be  assumed  that  they  have  functionally  implemented 
these chapters. As regards Chapter 5, 5 Member States replied to the Prüm questionnaire that 
legal or administrative provisions were not yet in place8. 

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

Data protection provisions 

The exchange of data under the Prüm Decision may only take place when all data protection 
provisions  of  Chapter 6  have  been  implemented  into  national  law.  This  is  examined  by 
experts of other Member States as part of the evaluation procedure through a questionnaire9. 

8 

9 

Information from national declarations about practical aspects of cooperation is in some cases contained 
in the ‘manual on cross-border operations’ (doc. 10505/4/09). 
Council document 6661/1/09. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
By  its  Decision  to  allow  a  Member  State  the  exchange  of  personal  data,  the  Council 
acknowledges that this Member State complies with all required data protection provisions. 

As at 31 October 2012 the following Member States had not yet submitted the reply to this 
questionnaire: DK, EL, IE, IT. At the same time only IT and EL had not yet complied with 
the  requirement10  to  indicate  the  independent  data  protection  authority  responsible  for  the 
Prüm data exchange. 

4. 

REASONS FOR DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTATION 

4.1. 

Technical difficulties 

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

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

4.2. 

Funding 

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

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

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

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

4.3. 

Conclusion 

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

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

10 

See Article 30(5) of the Prüm Decision. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

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

Prüm  was  adopted  under  the  former  third  pillar,  so  the  usual  rules  for  control  of  national 
implementation do not apply during a transitional period. As of December 2014, however, the 
Commission will have the possibility of using infringement proceedings11. 

5. 

USE OF THE INSTRUMENT 

5.1 

Automated information exchange under Chapter 2 

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

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

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

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

Statistics 

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

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

2011  was  the  first  year  for  which  comparable  statistics  were  collected.  The  collected  data 
showed  that  the  accuracy  of  statistics  for  all  three  data  types  still  needs  to  be  improved. 

11 

Protocol No 36 TFEU. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Nonetheless,  the  results  based  on  currently  available  figures  are  promising  and  demonstrate 
that the operational authorities are already making significant use of Prüm12: 

• 

• 

• 

Total verified matches for fingerprints in 2011: 2 553 

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

Total VRD requests in 2011 for which information was found: 260 25313 

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

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

5.2 

Room for improvement 

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

5.2.1  Post-hit follow-up 

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

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

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

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

12 
13 

Doc. 11367/12. 
The imbalances between these figures do not reflect the overall importance of the individual data types 
but the fact that different data types are used in differing ways in police practice. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

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

The potential for simplification through technical solutions has also been discussed. Here, it is 
noteworthy  that  the  Prüm  follow-up  procedure  has  been  selected  as  a  pilot  project  between 
Belgium,  Germany  and  Poland  under  the  UMF II  programme14.  This  programme,  largely 
funded by the Commission and managed by Europol, aims to establish a common framework 
for  structured  cross-border  information  exchange  between  law  enforcement  authorities, 
including a common semantic information model and exchange format. 

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

5.2.2  Technical and administrative specifications for implementation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 

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

EN 

8 

   EN 

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

5.3 

Police cooperation and information exchange (Chapters 3 to 5) 

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

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

very useful  13 

useless by 

3 

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

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

very useful  8 

useless by 

5 

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

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

very useful  14 

useless by 

1 

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

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

Use of provisions 

Chapter 3 

Chapter 4 

Chapter 5 

(major events) 

(terrorist offences) 

(other 
cooperation) 

forms 

of 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Often 

Sometimes 

Never 

8 

7 

6 

5 

2 

15 

5 

10 

8 

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

Conclusions 

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

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

6. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

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

The provision of meaningful statistics remains essential as this is the best way to assess the 
added  value  of  the  Prüm  Decisions.  Therefore,  Member  States  are  invited  to  reconsider 
options  to  improve  the  current  models  for  statistics  where  necessary.  The  aim  should  be  to 
identify even more exactly the number of matches that, after a follow-up request, turned up 
information  actually  used  in  criminal  investigations.  Filtering  statistics  for  DNA  data 
exchange  under  Option  2  of  document  12226/1115  would  be  a  useful  step  in  the  right 

15 

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

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
direction. This direction should be followed irrespective of what model of unfiltered statistics 
has been agreed by DAPIX. 

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

Though  beyond  the  scope  of  the  Decisions,  the  procedures  for  following  up  hits  has  turned 
out  to  be  a  key  aspect.  In  this  context,  ongoing  activities  to  map  national  follow-up 
procedures17 and related activities of the helpdesk for a standardised message format should 
also be considered. The Commission’s Communication on a European Information Exchange 
Model (EIXM), published together with this report, presents further recommendations in this 
regard. 

16 
17 

COM(2010) 385. 
Draft  2nd  action  list  for  the  implementation  of  IMS  (Information  Management  Strategy),  doc. 
12002/1/11 and doc 5113/12. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Overview of operational Member States 

Explanation: 

ANNEX 

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

Operational Member States are for 

• 

• 

• 

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

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

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

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

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

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
DNA operational data exchange 

BE  BG  CZ  DK  DE  EE  EL  ES  FR 
x 

IE 

IT  CY  LV  LT  LU  HU  MT  NL  AT  PL  PT  RO  SI  SK  FI  SE  UK 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

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

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FP operational data exchange  

BE  BG  CZ  DK  DE  EE  EL  ES  FR 
x 

IE 

IT  CY  LV  LT  LU  HU  MT  NL  AT  PL  PT  RO  SI  SK  FI  SE  UK 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

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

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VRD operational data exchange 

IE 

IT  CY  LV  LT  LU  HU  MT  NL  AT  PL  PT  RO  SI  SK  FI  SE  UK 

BE  BG  CZ  DK  DE  EE  EL  ES  FR 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

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

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 

16 

EN