COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Terrorist Financing Tracking System (TFTS)
Date: 2013-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Europol, United States, agreement (EU), data protection, exchange of information, financing method, personal data, protection of privacy, terrorism













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0488 - EN











|



52013SC0488

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Terrorist Financing Tracking System (TFTS) /* SWD/2013/0488 final */









Table of
Contents
I. Introduction. 3
II.     Procedural Issues and
Consultation of stakeholders. 4
II.1 Procedural
issues. 4
II.2.      External expertise
and consultation of stakeholders. 4
III. Policy context,
problem definition and the EU’s right to act 5
III. 1 Policy
context 7
III.2 Problem
definition. 9
III.2.1 The
transnational nature of terrorism and its financing. 9
III.2.2 Existing instruments/
measures are inadequate for tracking the financial trail of terrorists  10
III.3 Problem
drivers. 11
III.3.1 Driver 1:
The current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data is led by a
third country, thus not fully representing EU’s specific interests. 11
III.3.2 Driver 2:
The current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data only covers
one financial messaging provider and one type of message. 11
III.3.3 Driver 3:
The current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data raises
concerns as to the protection of privacy and personal data of European citizens. 12
III.3.4 Driver 4:
Besides the EU US TFTP Agreement, there is insufficient technical and legal
capability within the EU and in Member States to establish financial linkages
to trace and map terrorist networks  13
III.4 Baseline
scenario - How will the problem evolve without action?. 13
III.5 EU’s right to
act and justification. 15
IV.       Objectives. 17
V.    Policy options. 19
VI. ANALYSIS OF
IMPACTS.. 23
VII. COMPARING THE
OPTIONS.. 33
VII.1 The structure
of a new system.. 33
VII.2 The purpose of
a new system.. 35
VII.3 The scope of a
new system.. 36
VII.4 Elaboration of
the Preferred Option. 37
VIII. MONITORING AND
EVALUATION.. 38
IX. Annexes. 39
IX.1 Annex 1
Overview of Specific Assumptions. 39
IX.2 Annex 2 Table
of costs. 43

I. Introduction

When approving, in July
2010, the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United
States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data
from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist
Financing Tracking Program (EU-US TFTP Agreement), the Council called upon the
Commission to submit a legal and technical framework for extraction of data on
EU territory[1]. Likewise
the European Parliament asked at various occasions to envisage a durable,
legally sound European solution regarding the extraction of requested data on
European soil[2].  Article 11
of the EU-US TFTP Agreement states that during the course of that Agreement the
European Commission will carry out a study into the possible introduction of an
equivalent system allowing for a more targeted transfer of data than
encompassed in that Agreement.
In “The Stockholm
Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens”[3], the Council
called upon the Commission to examine the possibilities to track terrorist
financing within the Union.
In its Communication of
22 November 2010 to the European Parliament and the Council “The EU Internal
Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe”[4], the
Commission committed itself following the signature of the Terrorist Financing
Tracking Programme agreement with the United States to examine the possibility
of developing a policy for the EU to extract and analyse financial messaging
data held on its own territory.
As a first stage of its
response to these calls and the contents of Article 11 of the EU-US TFTP
Agreement, the European Commission published a Communication to the European
Parliament and the Council “A European terrorist financing tracking programme:
Available options”[5]  on 13 July
2011. The purpose of the Communication was to present different options
regarding the introduction of a European TFTS and the points to take into
consideration with respect to these options. It did not name a preferred option
but rather intended to trigger a debate on the part of the Council and European
Parliament given the political importance of the issue and its legal and
technical complexity.
Based on the subsequent
discussions and a comprehensive study carried out by an external contractor,
the European Commission has completed this Impact Assessment. By doing so, it
has in particular looked into the impact of a possible legislative proposal in
this context on fundamental rights, and especially on data protection. Specific
attention was paid to the necessity and proportionality of any measure. In
addition, the Impact Assessment takes particular account of the financial
burden for the EU, for Member States and for Designated Providers of the data
in question which the introduction of a new system would cause. Moreover, based
on the Commission report on the second joint review of the EU-US TFTP agreement[6], developments as
well as statistical information regarding the actual application of the Agreement
by Member States, in particular its Articles on reciprocity (Art. 9 and 10), have
carefully been taken into account.

II.      Procedural Issues and
Consultation of stakeholders
II.1 Procedural issues

The preparation of this
impact assessment has involved close coordination across Commission services.
An Inter Service Group on the establishment of an EU system equivalent to the
Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (EU TFTS) was set up in November 2010 to
inform on the state of play of the implementation of the EU US TFTP agreement,
on the expert meetings referred to below and the state of play of the
preparatory study that DG HOME commissioned but most importantly to discuss the
preparation of the impact assessment. The ISG comprised the following services:
HOME, JUST, SG, SJ, EEAS, HR, INFSO, OLAF, MARKT. The ISG met on 7 occasions.
Work on the IA began in
April 2012 and has been conducted over a period of six months. The IA was
submitted to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 19 September and discussed on
17 October. The Minutes of the last ISG meeting were submitted to the IAB.
The IAB's
recommendations from its opinion of 19.10.2012 have been fully taken into
account and have led to various amendments in the impact assessment, in
particular as concerns the problem definition, the baseline scenario, the
options and their assessments and the presentation of the stakeholder views. 
On 30
April 2013 the Board issued an overall positive opinion on the Impact
Assessment and put forward a number of suggestions for further improvements
which have been accommodated to the extent possible in this final version of
the Impact Assessment, 

II.2.     External expertise and
consultation of stakeholders

The Commission services
have made substantial efforts to obtain evidence in this field and to ensure
full engagement of the different stakeholders:
•           In December
2010, GHK Consulting Ltd (GHK) was commissioned by the Commission Services to
undertake a preparatory study to inform the impact assessment of a European
System equivalent to the existing US Terrorist Financing Tracking System. The
contract was extended, from a total duration of 7 months to a total duration of
14 months for two major reasons: 1.) to ensure that the study could cover other
policy options than those examined so far by the study, which might also come
out of the discussions with the Council and the European Parliament following
the Communication of 13.07.2011 and 2.) to allow for sufficient time for a more
thorough analysis and refinement of certain elements, including fundamental
rights issues and the overall market of financial messaging services. The study
was finalised in April 2012 and involved an extensive consultation of various
stakeholders[7].

•           In order to
discuss the possible creation of an EU TFTS system and its implications as well
as links to the EU-US TFTP agreement and possible impact on this, the
Commission Services carried out four expert meetings from November 2010 to
April 2011 involving stakeholders such as EUROPOL, European Data Protection
Supervisor (EDPS), the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication
(SWIFT) and many Member State experts (representing relevant ministries, law
enforcement/ intelligence agencies and DPAs). Experts from the US Treasury
Department participated at parts of one meeting to report on the US Terrorist
Financing Tracking Programme. 
•           On 24
November 2010, the meeting focused on the roles of SWIFT and Europol under the
existing EU-US TFTP Agreement.
•           The Meeting
on 21 January 2011 addressed the functioning of the US TFTP system and data
protection aspects of a potential EU equivalent.
•           The Meeting
on14 March 2011 focused on questions related to the interpretation and
implementation of the EU-US TFTP Agreement. 
•           Finally, the
meeting on 14th April 2011 was used to present and discuss draft policy
options.
The Commission Communication
of July 2011 on the state of play and possible options received only limited
feedback.
In the Council, the
issue was discussed at various occasions in a number of Council Committees and
by the JHA Ministers on 27 October 2011. While it is important to note that
Ministers only presented preliminary views and reserved their final positions,
it can be taken from this ministerial debate that a great number of Member
States (1) stressed the need for an in-depth analysis of the costs occurred by
any new system, (2) emphasised that a new system should not undermine the
existing agreement with the US and (3) could not agree on any of the options
presented by the Commission in its Communication of July 2011. Whereas some
Member States noted the added-value of an EU internal system, a considerable
number of Member States was much more sceptical. The need to take full account
of data protection rules was highlighted by a great number of Member States. 
The European Parliament,
by contrast, never formally reacted to the Commission’s Communication of July
2011. It did not decide to nominate a rapporteur for the issue. The LIBE
committee discussed the issue, albeit briefly, at a meeting in autumn 2011. In
addition, on 6 November 2012 the Director-General of DG HOME met with the LIBE
coordinators to discuss the EU TFTS and to update on the state of play of the
Impact Assessment. The views expressed by the different political groups showed
that, on a personal basis, some MEP's from three of these groups strongly opposed
the options included in the Commission’s Communication and proposed another way
to address the issue, i.e. by data retention and extraction. This is the reason
why the current Impact Assessment addresses more than those options detailed in
the July 2011 Communication in order to make sure that all (even if only
remotely) politically relevant options are carefully analysed in this Impact
Assessment. The additional options are listed as options B.4.1 and B.4.2. To
complete the picture of possible options, the Commission decided to include an
option called “status quo plus”. This option, listed as option A.2, builds upon
the status quo of the current application of the EU-US TFTP Agreement but would
include certain amendments to this Agreement to better reflect EU specific
issues.
Finally, the Commission
also received some limited feedback from citizens but also from one national
Parliament. Most of this feedback highlighted the need to protect the
fundamental rights of those affected by any new instrument, including the right
to personal data protection. In addition, the Article 29 Data Protection
Working Party stressed that the Commission would first need to make the case as
regards the legality and necessity of a new TFTS before a detailed analysis regarding
the data protection implications could be made. It also emphasised, amongst
others, the need to include a careful definition of the data that will be
processed, ensure that the data processed would meet the necessity test and
that sufficient safeguards would be applied by all authorities involved.
Given the technical
complexity of the questions at stake and their operational and political
sensitivity because of their impact on security and relations to a third
country a more extensive general public consultation was not carried out.

III.
Policy context, problem definition and the EU’s right to act

 Policy context || Problem definition || Drivers – Current Key Problems 
 Terrorism remains a major threat to the security of EU citizens and property   ||   Terrorism and its financing are mainly transnational in nature         Existing instruments/ measures are inadequate for tracking the financial trail of terrorists activities in Europe || The current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data is run by a third country and requires the transfer of large amounts of such data from the EU to that third-country. While Member States as well as Europol/Eurojust can benefit from the current mechanism through reciprocity clauses, the mechanism logically does not fully represent EU interests. 
 The current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data only covers one financial messaging provider and one type of message 
 Despite its ratification by EP/Council, a number of safeguards and joint reviews confirming their proper application, the current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data raises questions as to the level of protection of privacy and personal data of European citizens. 
 There is insufficient technical and legal capability within the EU/ MS to establish financial linkages to trace and map terrorist networks apart from information obtained through the TFTP Agreement. 

III.
1 Policy context

Terrorism
remains a major threat to the security of EU citizens and property
Europol’s TE-SAT report 2010[8] included
statistics on trends and stated that 1,359 terrorist attacks were carried out
in the EU between 2007 and 2009 by separatists; a further 104 attacks were
carried out by left-wing terrorism; and 4 attacks by Islamists. Europol’s TE-SAT
2011 report[9]
indicates that, in 2010, in 9 Member States, 249 terrorist attacks were
completed, failed or foiled, of which 160 as part of separatist terrorism, 45
by left-wing terrorism and 3 by Islamist affiliations. The total number of
arrests in that same year amounted to 611, mostly of separatists (349),
followed by Islamist terrorists (179). A total of 307 persons stood trial for
terrorist charges in 11 Member States, with Spain by far having the highest
numbers of trials, namely 173. In 2011, a total number of 332 persons were
convicted (241) or acquitted (91) for terrorism charges, again with the highest
number in Spain (198, with 122 convictions and 76 acquittals). Finally,
Europol’s TE-SAT 2012 report indicates that, in 2011, in 7 Member States, 174
terrorist attacks were completed, failed or foiled, of which 110 as part of
separatist terrorism, 37 by left-wing terrorism, and one by right-wing
terrorism (27 not specified). The total number of arrests in that same year
amounted to 484, mostly of separatists (247), followed by religiously inspired
terrorists (122). A total of 316 persons stood trial for terrorist charges in
11 Member States. A total number of 332 persons were convicted (241) or
acquitted (91) for terrorism charges.
Member
States continue to be exposed to a serious threat from religiously inspired/Islamist,
ethno-nationalist and separatist, as well as from left–wing and anarchist
terrorism. The scale of terrorist attacks varies greatly between the Member
States. In the past, some Member States experienced and/or prevented several
Islamist attacks such as Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Member
States also suffered from anarchist, left-wing or separatist terrorism (e.g.
France, Greece, Denmark, Italy and Spain) or from right-wing terrorism. The
threat level in the Member States ranges between very likely, likely or
moderate, with most threat expected from Islamist groupings. EU citizens are
victims of terrorism all around the world, not just in Europe. For example, six
EU citizens lost their lives and 15 were injured in the 2008 Mumbai terror
attacks.
Europol confirms that
while the number of terrorist incidents and arrests in Europe may continue to
fall, overall activity relating to terrorism still represents a significant threat
to EU Member States (TE-SAT 2012 Report). 
Obviously
there are more important impacts related to terrorism than economic ones, above
all when human lives are affected. However, at this point, it should also be
mentioned that terrorism has direct and indirect effects on the economy. The
direct economic effects and consequences of terrorist attacks include loss of
life and loss of productive capacity of those killed, injured or traumatised;
destruction of physical property and infrastructure; responses to the
emergency, restoration of the systems and the infrastructure affected, and the
provision of temporary living assistance. The immediate material damages of the
Madrid bombings were estimated at € 17.62 million, and minimum direct economic
cost has been estimated at more than € 211.58 million[10]. The indirect
costs of terrorism are often even more significant and have the potential to
affect the economy in the medium to long term, for example by undermining
consumer and investor confidence; abnormal losses suffered by certain directly
impacted industries, sectors, localities or regions; increased costs of
security analogous to a ‘security’ or ‘terrorist tax’; opportunity cost of
spending additional money to fight terrorism and other long-run costs. A number
of studies have been conducted which attempted to quantify the overall cost of a
terrorist attack[11];
some of these focused on the impact of 9/11. A dedicated OECD Report of 2002 focused
on the economic consequences of 9/11.
Terrorist
financing is the financial support in any form, of terrorism or of those who
encourage, plan, or engage in terrorism. Countering the financing of terrorism
means to prevent terrorists and entities linked to terrorism from collecting,
moving and gaining access to funds and by this to deprive terrorists from their
possibility to engage in terrorist activity. That is why countering the
financing of terrorism is a core component of the EU’s strategy and fight
against terrorism.
The
EU’s Counter-terrorism strategy stresses that tackling terrorist financing is
part of creating a hostile operating environment for terrorists[12].
The EU’s revised Strategy on Terrorist Financing of 17 July 2008[13]
points out that efforts have to be maintained to prevent terrorist financing
and control the use by suspected terrorists of their own financial resources. 
The explicit mentions in the EU’s Stockholm Programme and the Commission’s
Internal Security Strategy have been referred to above. This policy is
completely coherent with other relevant EU initiatives and legislation, in
particular 
·       
Directive 2005/60/EC on the prevention of the
use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist
financing which imposes, for example, obligations on financial institutions and
other stakeholders to report suspicious transactions related to terrorist
financing. In February 2013, the Commission has published a proposal[14] to review
this Directive in order to up-date it and to adapt it to the revision of
international standards.  
·       
Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 on information on
the payer accompanying transfers of funds which aims at preventing terrorists
from having unfettered access to wire transfers.
·       
Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 on controls of cash
entering or leaving the Community which has the objective to hinder terrorists
and others from smuggling money in cash across borders.
·       
Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 freezing funds of
suspected terrorists and Regulation (EC) 881/2002 implementing UN Al Qai'da and
Taliban sanctions which by preventative means deprive terrorists from making
use of their financial assets.

III.2 Problem definition
III.2.1 The transnational nature of terrorism
and its financing make detection and acting against
terrorism funding very challenging

Most
terrorist activities are transnational in character and involve fund raising
and transfers which cross borders. Terrorist organisations are highly pragmatic
in their approach to financing their activities. Political boundaries are
easily ignored if they stand in the way of the acquisition of funds[15].
It is not unusual at all that funds are collected or generated in one country
and then transferred to another country be it to spend it for the preparation
of and purchase of goods for the actual terrorist attack on the ground, to
subsidy a local terrorist network or training camp etc. There have been cases,
for example, where an allegedly charitable association collected donations in a
Member State to transfer the money then to a third country for the purchase of
arms which then were employed in the Near East.  
Because
of its transnational nature, detecting and stopping the financing of terrorism
is extremely challenging. By crossing borders with their funds, terrorists try
to cover up their tracks and to benefit from different jurisdictions with unequal
levels of surveillance and control. International cooperation in this field is
therefore of utmost importance. That is why the EU and the US agreed to work
closely together in this field, as demonstrated in particular by the EU US-TFTP
agreement. The US is a key strategic partner for the EU in the fight against
terrorism and its financing but apart from the US, the EU also maintains good counter-terrorism
co-operation with other countries around the globe. 
At
international, EU and national levels, Member States have different instruments
and measures at their disposal to identify and combat the financing of
terrorism. Important EU instruments are the Directive on the prevention of the
use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist
financing and the Council Decision concerning arrangements for cooperation
between financial intelligence units of the Member States in respect of
exchanging information. There are other legal instruments impacting the issue
of terrorist financing such as Council Regulation on specific restrictive
measures directed against persons and entities with a view to combating
terrorism, Regulation on information on the payer accompanying transfers of
funds or Regulation on controls of cash entering or leaving the community,
nevertheless the primary objective of these instruments is not to provide and
exchange pertinent intelligence information.
In
existing legislation terrorism financing is often put in context with organised
crime, in particular money laundering. This was reflected in the preparation of
the current Impact Assessment by the wish of some stakeholders and Member
States to also consider whether data gathered by a new EU TFTS could also be
used for purposes beyond fighting terrorism, namely fighting serious organised
crime. That is why particular consideration is given to the purpose of a new
system and why specific options address it in this assessment.
At the
same time, there is a body of EU legislation to ensure that personal data obtained
and processed by the EU or the Member States is adequately protected from
unauthorised access and misuse, and treated with respect for the fundamental
rights in relation to privacy (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
and data protection (Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). In
addition to various legislative instruments, there are also a number of
international and EU bodies which are actively involved in the fight against
terrorist financing, such as the Financial Action Task Force on Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing (FATF), the Committee on the Prevention of
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, the EU Financial Intelligence Units
(FIU) Platform, Eurojust and Europol. 

III.2.2 Existing instruments/ measures
are inadequate for tracking the financial trail of terrorists

Even if
cooperation between Member States is increasing, for example at the level of
the FIUs, or as part of EUROPOL and Eurojust, the combating of terrorism has
mainly remained a national matter. Within each Member State, national law
enforcement authorities can obtain direct information, via judicial or extra-judicial
channels. However, given that terrorism is a global phenomenon, investigations
often require the collection of information and evidence across borders. For
this, Member States can make use of a series of instruments, such as, for
example, bilateral co-operation, Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) and, within the
EU, the European Evidence Warrant (EEW). However, obtaining information from
third countries is often much more complicated, time-consuming or sometimes
even impossible in practice. This is also the case when MLA instruments exist. For
example, there may be reliable information that a specific terrorist is moving
money from Africa to Europe or elsewhere in preparation of a terrorist act but
the banks to which he or she is sending the money or even the countries in
which those banks are located may not be known. It would be impossible for the
country concerned to issue MLA requests for the relevant records of every bank
in every country in the EU or elsewhere in the world.
FIUs,
especially through FIU.NET, a decentralised computer network for the exchange
of information between FIUs, and as part of their general cooperation and
information exchange activities, already have a much greater capacity to track
financial transactions. However, in most cases they can only take the initiative
following suspicious transaction reports. Furthermore these reports are not
very frequent in the context of terrorist financing as reporting entities, like
financial institutions, have difficulties in identifying the terrorist context since,
contrary to money launderers,  terrorists and those financing terrorism often
use legal money for their purposes. 
After
9/11, the United States have decided to tackle the problem of terrorist
financing more effectively by setting up a Terrorist Financing Tracking Program
(TFTP) which aims at analysing international bank transfers of certain types
and from certain geographical regions. In order to have access to relevant financial
data stored in the EU, the US has concluded an agreement with the EU, the EU-US
TFTP Agreement. 

III.3
Problem drivers
III.3.1
Driver 1: The current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data is
led by a third country, thus not fully representing EU’s specific interests.

As
stated above, Europol and other sources confirm that the threat of terrorist
attacks remains significant. 
In the
EU, the threat comes mainly from separatist, religiously inspired, left-wing
and anarchist terrorists, which appear to be ‘cyclical’ in terms of their
intensity and risk they represent and, to some extent, quite different from the
threat to the US. The threat in the latter mainly comes from Islamist terrorism,
which does not have, or only has a limited, presence in the US itself. This implies
that the TFTP has been mainly used by the US for the purpose of investigating
terrorist activity linked to the threat as perceived by the US, and less on
forms of terrorism which pose a threat to the EU.
In
the past Member States made relatively little use of the reciprocity clauses
contained in the EU-US TFTP agreement and hardly benefitted from the data
exchange themselves, mainly due to a lack of awareness. This, however, has changed
in the period addressed in the second review (March 2011 to September 2012) as
the Commission confirms in its second joint review report regarding the
implementation of the EU- US TFTP Agreement[16].
This report demonstrates that Member States are increasingly applying the reciprocity
clauses in this Agreement to benefit themselves from the data exchanged with
the US. This shows that this problem driver cannot be seen as a static one but
as the EU-US TFTP Agreement has been further applied and all actors are in the
process of constantly gaining more experience with it, the importance of this
problem driver has decreased over time.

III.3.2
Driver 2: The current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data
only covers one financial messaging provider and one type of message

Given
that it is a US programme with a global focus, at present, only FIN messages
(Financial Institution Transfer messages) transferred through the SWIFT network
are included in the TFTP. FIN messages are a SWIFT created message type by
which financial information is transmitted from one financial institution to
another. According to SWIFT, FIN is their core messaging system that enables
over 8.300 financial institutions in more than 200 countries to exchange financial
data securely. The fact that the TFTP only covers this kind of messages,
however, represents several limitations. First, whilst FIN covers part of the
financial messaging “market”, the competitive landscape is larger and divided
over different types of services. This means that terrorists can make use of
alternative financial channels. Although being the biggest global player, SWIFT
still only handles a minor share of all money transfers in the world.  
The
Automated Clearing House (ACH) is another important electronic payment transfer
system. Globally in 2009, 48% of all non-cash payments were processed through
ACH (75 billion) and within the EU, 58% of all payments were processed through
ACH (42 billion), mainly handling individual, equal currency, low value
transactions (retail payments). 
Domestic
non-Market Infrastructure payments (In-house) and Cross-border payments
(Correspondent banking) also play an important role. These encompass transfers
between banks, but outside payment systems for clearing and settlement and make
up the second largest payment category, with an estimated global share of 42.5%
and an EU share of 42%. In-house transactions are most often communicated via
the banks’ own communication tools. 
Whilst
the incidence of FIN messages in cross-border payments is high, it is also
assumed that the largest remainder of such payments are handled through direct
communication networks between the banks, with a relatively lower share being
communicated through other proprietary networks competing with SWIFT.
Another
important payment device is electronic money (e-money). Electronic money is a
digital equivalent of cash, stored on an electronic device or remotely at a
server. Payments made via e-money services were already estimated to represent
7.75% of the total global transactions and 5.5% of transactions in the EU. The
by far largest player in the EU, PayPal, globally represented in 2009 21% of
the market and 1.6% of all global transactions, with a share in the EU of 3.4%
on all transactions and 63% on e-money payments. E-money services are growing
rapidly.
Apart
from that, other payment methods, such as those made via remittances services,
exist. 

III.3.3
Driver 3: The current mechanism in place to analyse financial messaging data
raises concerns as to the protection of privacy and personal data of European
citizens

Most
criticism concerns the TFTP’s alleged inconformity with the right to respect
for private and family life (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
and the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights and Article 16 of the TFEU), as well as with the obligations
under the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) and other relevant EU
Acquis. As stated above, similar concerns have also been expressed in relation
to a possible future EU system, and were the major point of distress put
forward in feedback to the Commission’s Communication of July 2011. Concerns
regarding the existing system referred amongst others to differences between US
data protection legislation and EU legislation, as in the US the right to
privacy is not an explicit fundamental (constitutional) right and as the US has
a sectorial approach rather than a comprehensive set of data protection
instruments. In addition, stakeholders also question the necessity and
proportionality of transferring bulk data on EU citizens to a third country and
criticise the verification and authorisation processes to allow for the
transfer of such data.  
The
first joint review as well as the second joint review of the implementation of
the EU-US TFTP Agreement by the Commission have verified that the comprehensive
safeguards included in the Agreement, in particular those related to personal
data protection, function properly. The practical and to date more experienced
application of the EU-US TFTP Agreement has put this problem driver’s relevance
in the context showing that the original concerns at the time of initial
analysis of an EU system have been addressed by the effective set of safeguards
embedded in the Agreement. 

III.3.4
Driver 4: Besides the EU-US TFTP Agreement, there is insufficient technical and
legal capability within the EU and in Member States to establish financial
linkages to trace and map terrorist networks

Within
its limitations, the TFTP is the only mechanism which can map and profile those
suspected of terrorism or financing terrorism, and show their financial
movements and links, within a very short time period, requiring very few
resources. By linking them in an objective way to suspected terrorists, the TFTP
is capable of bringing previously unknown persons on the "radar screen"
and, by doing so, supports law enforcement authorities dismantling terrorist networks
and prevent further terrorist activities.
Whilst other
existing instruments are able to provide some ‘parts of the puzzle’, none is
able to do the same as a TFTP-like system. The system is unique in that it allows
access to financial messages from all financial institutions using the FIN
messaging service, i.e. potentially covering more than 9,000 financial
institutions in 209 countries. It is therefore able to address the global nature
of terrorism. 
At
the level of the EU, there is no equivalent system in place which would
disclose financial linkages to trace and map terrorist networks. The existing
legislative and operational instruments which have been set up at the level of
the EU and Member States or in which the EU and Member States participate (like
the FIU.net, co-operation between EU FIUs be it bilaterally or in the context
of the FIU platform, mutual legal assistance instruments) do not, cannot and
have not been created to offer the same advantages as the TFTP in terms of speed,
efficiency and effectiveness. Pursuant to the preventive system based on the 3rd
Anti-Money Laundering Directive, for example, Financial Intelligence Units
analyse financial transactions on a case by case basis following suspicious
transaction reports by obliged entities such as financial institutions. The EU
freezing system related to terrorist funds requires a formal list of persons
and entities related to terrorism agreed by the Council in order to prevent
financial transactions of those listed. But there is no system in place that
uses data which would make it  able to show a complete pattern of financial
“behaviour” and connections of a person or organisation suspected of terrorism
or financing terrorism. 

III.4
Baseline scenario - How will the problem evolve without action?

The
international cooperation and the capability of Member States to trace and map
terrorist will remain important in light of the persisting threat of terrorist
attacks. 
Under
the baseline scenario, no EU TFTS system would be created at this stage. The EU
US TFTP Agreement would continue to exist and to be applied. There would be one
Designated Provider being obliged to disclose relevant financial data and only
its FIN messages would be covered. There would not be any additional costs for
Member States or the EU which the establishment of a new system would cause.
Moreover, no additional data, including personal, would be collected. 
Member
States, Europol and Eurojust would continue having a possibility to use the TFTP
within its limitations as described earlier. Reciprocity is a basic principle
underlying the EU US TFTP Agreement and two provisions (Articles 9 and 10) are
the basis for Member States as well as, where appropriate, Europol and Eurojust
to benefit from TFTP data. These provisions enable EU authorities to obtain
directly relevant financial data from the U.S. Treasury which helps them to
fight terrorism and its financing more efficiently in the EU. Article 10
stipulates that a law enforcement, public security, or counter terrorism
authority of a Member State, or Europol or Eurojust, may request a search for
relevant information obtained through the TFTP from the US if it determines
that there is reason to believe that a person or entity has a nexus to
terrorism or its financing. Pursuant to Art. 9 of the Agreement the U.S.
Treasury Department shall ensure the availability to law enforcement, public
security, or counter terrorism authorities of concerned Member States, and, as
appropriate, to Europol and Eurojust of information obtained through the TFTP. 
Member
States hardly made any use of these rights shortly after the EU US-TFTP
Agreement took effect. According to the second review of the application of the
EU US TFTP Agreement, as reflected in the report by the Commission[17], Member
States are increasingly making use of the reciprocity clauses contained in the
Agreement in order to benefit from TFTP data for their fight against terrorism
and its financing. The report shows that there were only ten Article 10
requests during the six-month period after entry into force of the EU US TFTP Agreement.
However, there were 94 requests sent to the US in the period addressed in the
second review. This figure only reflects those sent via Europol. The actual
figure is presumingly higher as Article 10 allows Member States to send
requests directly to the U.S. Treasury.  One reason for this increase is a greater
awareness of this mechanism on the part of Member States. Europol actively
contributed to raising this awareness by promoting the reciprocity provisions
through dedicated campaigns in Member States. Apart from that, the U.S. Treasury
sends reports on possible terrorist threats to EU Member States and Europol without
a specific request based on Art. 9 of the EU US TFTP Agreement. 
These
figures and insights gained during the second joint review of the EU-US TFTP
agreement[18]
show that the TFTP data exchange is no longer a "one-way street" but
that Member States are using this programme increasingly for their own purposes
to fight terrorism and its financing. There are no indications that the active use
of the reciprocity clauses of the Agreement and consequently the benefit on the
part of Member States and Europol with regard to TFTP data would diminish in
the future.  
In
addition, the TFTP is equipped with robust control measures to ensure that safeguards,
including those on personal data protection, are duly respected. Proper
implementation of these safeguards has been subject to two joint reviews
carried out in 2011 and 2012. Therefore, under the baseline scenario the
current level of personal data protection would be maintained while, at the
same time, also not increasing the amount of data collected. 
In the
course of the second joint review, Europol as well as Member States underlined
the importance of data received via TFTP for their fight against terrorism.
During the second joint review and despite the difficulties in declassifying
information related to TFTP based investigations, the US Treasury showed
various actual examples of cases in which TFTP based information supported the
identification of terrorists or terrorist activities, including cases related
to the EU. A number of such case examples have been annexed to the second joint
review report following declassification by the US. 
Furthermore,
the US Treasury and Europol confirmed in the course of the second review that requests
based on Article 10 of the Agreement are dealt with in short time. This was
also confirmed by Member States’ experts at a meeting in Brussels on 23
November 2012 which focussed especially on the reciprocity clauses. Member
States confirmed that, while replies to their first requests based on
reciprocity took some time to be answered by the US, there had been very
positive developments and, by now, replies were received without any undue
delay. This shows that as the reciprocity mechanism had been a new instrument
in this context, it took some time to become known and fully operative.    

III.5
EU’s right to act and justification

The
Commission, in Article 11 of the EU-US TFTP agreement, has been given the
specific mandate to explore the introduction of an equivalent EU system, which
should allow for a more targeted transfer of data. The right of the EU to act
in this field is further enshrined in Article 82 and Article 87 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 
The
threat from terrorism remains significant and there are benefits of new and
effective tools to prevent terrorist attacks and to map the movement of
financial transactions to identify terrorists and those financing terrorism.
Such tools should take account of the transnational nature of terrorism,
crossing international borders and establishing cells in many different
countries. 
Article
67 of the TFEU stipulates that the EU shall constitute an area of freedom,
security and justice and asks the Union to ensure a high level of security
through measures to combat crime. For the introduction of a Terrorist Financing
Tracking System to run searches of financial movements with the aim to detect
links to terrorism across the Member States and third countries, the EU is best
placed to take action. EU action would also guarantee the application of high common
standards for the protection of personal data and additional necessary
safeguards.
Need to
act
The
TFTP is U.S. intelligence tool, providing opportunities which at present do not
exist on the EU territory. The system takes into account the global nature of
terrorism and the commonly dispersed structure of terrorist organisations,
broken down in cells which appear entirely unconnected and based in different
EU and third countries spread over the world. The TFTP has proven to be a
valuable tool for counter-terrorism investigations. This has been demonstrated
in the context of the second joint review of the EU US TFTP Agreement. The
report on this review contains in its Annex IV examples of recent terrorist
cases illustrating the added value of the agreement. This set of examples
relates to a number of terrorist groups including Al Qaida and Al-Shabaab and
highlights some of the cases in which the TFTP has provided key leads as well
as the ways in which TFTP derived data have helped to identify the financial
support networks behind these terrorist groups currently under investigation by
U.S. and European authorities. In particular, the case of the Islamic Jihad
Union (IJU) underlines the concrete value of the system for EU Member States as
it concerns the preparation of a serious terrorist attack in an EU Member
State. 
Without
the TFTP, it would in several cases have been impossible to identify terrorists
and their financial supporters through ‘traditional’ law enforcement and
judicial instruments on time. In nearly all cases in which the system was used,
they would not have been identified in such a short time period. The TFTP
presents some huge efficiency gains and savings, both in terms of quality, time
and resources, as it allows investigators to focus their efforts from the very
start, through the provision of highly accurate and reliable information. In
addition, EU authorities are increasingly benefitting from TFTP data based on
the application of the reciprocity clauses contained in the agreement as
referred to above. However, TFTP presents still some limits, such as covering
only one designated provider and one messaging system, which a proper EU system
could mitigate in order to better achieve the objective of effectively fighting
terrorism and its financing from an EU perspective and within the EU. 
Subsidiarity
The
issues to be addressed, i.e. the threat of terrorism and the huge social and
economic costs of a terrorist attack, are of a transnational nature, affecting
more than one Member State at the same time. In this sense, they cannot be
dealt with in a fully satisfactory manner by the individual Member States. Only
an EU-wide system would enable the co-operation needed between Member States to
control and track the financial transaction taking place within the EU but also
between the EU and third countries. National systems would inevitably be
limited to track and check transactions with a domestic link and could
consequently not provide the same level of security for the EU. Member States
would need to cumbersomely compare each other’s data which would render a
system based on domestic programmes very slow and complicated. 
Proportionality
By its
nature, a TFTP like system requires the use and processing of bulk data which
is privately held and collected by service providers for a different purpose
than law enforcement. This means inevitably interference with the fundamental
rights to the protection of private life and to the protection of personal data
as recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the
European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as
well as Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
These rights can be subject to limitations, as defined in Article 52 of the
Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which allow for
interferences that are "in the interest of national security, public safety
or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others", "in accordance with the law" and
"necessary in a democratic society”. The two Commission reports on the
joint EU US Reviews of the TFTP agreement came to the conclusion that, with
regard to the operation of the TFTP, rigid control measures were in place to
ensure that safeguards, including those on personal data protection, were duly
respected. This demonstrates that sufficient safeguards could be incorporated
in such an instrument and be properly implemented thus ensuring its
proportionality.
If EU
action would consist of establishing an EU equivalent system, this would
inevitably lead to the collection of personal data. It would need to be
accompanied by a clear legal framework, based on relevant EU data protection
legislation. Appropriate control measures and arrangements should be put in
place and the data which is being processed would need to be carefully defined
and limited to a minimum whilst still ensuring the functionality and the
added-value of a new system. 
In
order to assess the proportionality of establishing a new system, the issue of
additional impacts on Member States’ and the EU’s budget would also need to be
taken account, in particular given the current economic situation and linked
austerity programmes.

IV.    Objectives

Terrorist
offences cause severe harm to victims, inflict economic damage on a large scale
and undermine the sense of security without which persons cannot exercise their
freedom and individual rights effectively. The principal objective of an EU
TFTS would be therefore to cut off terrorists’ access to funding and to track
financial transactions linked to terrorism in order to enhance security in the
EU.
 Outline of General, Specific and Operational Objectives 
 General Objectives || Specific Objectives || Operational Objectives 
 To track  terrorists’ financial transactions in order to fight  terrorism and to enhance security   || 1.    To ensure that the system is tailored to respond to EU’s intelligence requirements given its threat assessment || To improve the relevance and effectiveness of searches and analyses of financial messaging data. To increase Member State participation in and use of the financial messaging data 
 2.    To maintain effective cooperation with the US and other third countries in the fight against terrorism || To ensure data/ intelligence sharing between the US and EU is based on the principle of reciprocity To ensure that the EU/ Member States can share the results of relevant searches with other third countries 
 3.    To ensure that the analysis of financial messaging data covers the most relevant service provider(s) and message type(s) || To prevent terrorists from escaping the net 
 4.    To ensure full protection of the rights to privacy and data protection of European citizens when processing financial messaging data || To ensure data security and integrity To ensure that all processing activities will comply with current EU data protection law To put in place robust safeguards, oversight and control To provide citizens with appropriate administrative judicial protection, in terms of access to remedies and redress 
 5.    To increase the EU and Member State access and  analyses of financial messaging data and their capacity to identify links between individuals/ groups involved in terrorism or its financing || To put in place an EU or Member State capability to analyse financial messaging data To improve efficiencies in the fight against terrorism by channelling and having an overview of financial information and data from all Member States To increase the investigative capabilities of the EU and Member states 

V.      Policy options

 Policy Option || Description 
 A ‘No EU TFTS’ options 
 A.1 Status quo (baseline) || This policy option involves no further/ new action being taken by the EU. Under this option, the present arrangements as per the US-EU TFTP Agreement would continue. 
 A.2 Status quo plus || Under this option, the US-EU TFTP Agreement would continue, but amendments would be made. These would ensure a higher EU involvement in the TFTP, for example by compiling requests for “raw” data in consultation with EUROPOL and/or the Member States and  by allowing EUROPOL and/or Member State analysts to access the system, meaning that they could run searches autonomously. This would also require agreement by the US and a formal approval of the amendments by the EU legislator. 
 A.3 Zero option || This policy option involves the termination of the present US-EU TFTP Agreement, in the scenario that Member States / the EU would withdraw its support of the agreement. 
 B EU TFTS With various sub options  for the structure 
 B1. Centralised system at EU level || The EU TFTS. This policy option would involve an EU legislative instrument establishing a fully centralised EU TFTS unit. The tasks and functions of the unit would be fully centralised, meaning that issuing requests for “raw” data to the Designated Providers(s), verification of these requests, running searches, managing search results, in terms of carrying out analyses and forwarding reports to those it considers relevant, etc. would all take place at central level. The key bodies involved in the system could be EUROPOL and Eurojust, or by EU bodies to be established. Member States, the US and, possibly, other third countries, would be recipients, without having an active role in the TFTS. Monitoring compliance with safeguards and controls would also be fully centralised, possibly involving oversight by external stakeholders. 
 B2. Decentralised system at MS level || The national implementation of EU TFTS. This policy option would involve the establishment of Member State TFTS units, by individual Member State (which would imply establishing a maximum of 27/28 national TFTS systems). The tasks and functions would thus be fully decentralised. This means that each Member State would be responsible for issuing requests for “raw” data to the Designated Provider(s) and for verifying these requests and that each will receive individual sets of data. The Member States would also be responsible for running searches and managing search results, in terms of carrying out analyses and forwarding reports to those it considers relevant. Monitoring compliance with safeguards and controls would also be fully de-centralised, possibly involving oversight by external stakeholders. The key bodies involved would be national law enforcement or intelligence authorities (separate bodies for issuing requests to Designated Provider(s) and for verifying these requests), with the possibility of creating new national bodies or introduce new units. Relevant data protection stakeholders would supervise processing activities and enforce compliance with data protection law. 
 B3. Hybrid systems   B3.1 A central EU TFTS unit but MS are free to undertake their own searches. || Several hybrid systems are possible, ranging from a very high to a very low level of EU involvement. B3.1 The EU TFTS coordination and analytical service. This policy option would involve an EU legislative instrument establishing an EU central TFTS unit, with most of the tasks and functions being implemented at the EU level. These would consist of issuing requests for “raw” data to the Designated Providers(s), verification of these requests, running searches, handling requests for searches and managing search results, in terms of carrying out analyses and forwarding reports to those who requested searches or to those it considers relevant, etc. Requests for “raw” data to be issued to the Designated Provider(s) would be prepared in consultation with the Member States. Member States could opt to either request searches to be run on their behalf by the central unit (having to substantiate their requests for searches and the nexus to terrorism to the central unit), or undertake their own searches, through designated national TFTS analysts which would be based in the same location as the EU TFTS unit. The extent to which such requests are substantiated and have a nexus to terrorism could be verified and validated at EU national level for searches by EUROPOL and at national level for Member State searches. Monitoring compliance with safeguards and controls would be centralised, possibly involving oversight by external stakeholders. Data protection, integrity and security would also be ensured at the central level. The key bodies involved in the system could be EUROPOL and Eurojust. Alternatively, the possibility of creating new bodies could be included, or the appointment of other existing ones.  At national level, the key bodies involved would be national law enforcement and intelligence authorities, with the possibility of creating new national bodies. Relevant data protection stakeholders would supervise processing activities and enforce compliance with data protection law.   
 B3.2 An EU central unit which runs own as well as MS searches. || B3.2 EU TFTS extraction service. This policy option would involve an EU legislative instrument establishing a EU central TFTP unit, whose tasks would comprise issuing requests for “raw” data to the Designated Providers(s), verification of these requests, running searches, handling requests for searches and preparing search results in a presentable manner, without analysis. Requests for “raw” data to be issued to the Designated Provider(s) would be prepared in consultation with the Member States. Member States would request searches to be run on their behalf. The extent to which such requests are substantiated and have a nexus to terrorism would be verified and validated at national level. The EU central TFTP unit would run the search and return the full set of results, organised in a presentable manner, to the Member States. The EU central TFTP unit would be able to conduct searches and analyse the results on behalf of EU institutions, the US and, possibly, other third countries. It could also opt for spontaneous provision of information. Monitoring compliance with safeguards and controls would be centralised, possibly involving oversight by external stakeholders. Data protection, integrity and security would also be ensured at the central and national levels. The key bodies involved in the system could be EUROPOL and Eurojust. Alternatively, the possibility of creating new bodies could be included, or the appointment of other existing ones. Relevant data protection stakeholders would supervise processing activities and enforce compliance with data protection law. 
 B3.3 An ad-hoc EU level authority, probably by upgrading the current FIU Platform. || B3.3 The FIU coordination service. This policy option would involve the establishment of an EU legislative instrument establishing an ad-hoc EU level authority, possibly by upgrading the FIU Platform, made up of all Member State FIUs. The tasks and functions would, in part be centralised and in part be decentralised. The upgraded FIU Platform would issue requests for “raw” data to the Designated Provider(s), by compiling the needs specified by the FIUs into a single request. The data could be centrally stored with the IT Agency, but made available (either physically or via secure connections) to the FIUs. Each FIU would be responsible for running searches and managing search results on behalf of their Member State, in terms of carrying out analyses and forwarding reports to those it considers relevant. The extent to which searches are substantiated and have a nexus to terrorism would be verified and validated at national level. Monitoring compliance with safeguards and controls would be centralised, possibly involving oversight by external stakeholders. Data protection, integrity and security would also be ensured at the central level. Relevant data protection stakeholders would supervise processing activities and enforce compliance with data protection law. 
 B4 Retention / Extraction   As mentioned above, these two options have been included at the request of some Members of Parliament following the publication of the Commission’s Communication on possible options in July 2011. These MEPs expressed the opinion that, personally, they had a mere retention/extraction system in mind when agreeing to the EU-US TFTP Agreement. As a consequence, the Commission decided to expand the assessment to include the analysis of these two additional options und B.4.   || B.4.1 Data retention regime. Under this policy option, the Designated Providers would be required to retain the data on its server for a certain period (to be determined). The option would eliminate the need to make requests for “raw” data and the related verification process. The storage of the data would remain with the Designated Providers. Access to the retained data could either be granted to the US, possibly by amending the EU-US TFTP Agreement, or be expanded to other stakeholders, including EUROPOL (also for requests for searches from third countries) and Member State responsible authorities. The US and Member States would need to ‘substantiate’ each request and its nexus to terrorism before a search could be initiated with their respective national authorities. The Designated Provider would run the search and return the full set of search results to those requesting it. If technically feasible, it may be considered to encrypt both the searches and the search results. Monitoring compliance with safeguards and controls would be centralised, possibly involving oversight by external stakeholders. 
   || B.4.2 Data retention regime and extraction system. This option would be the same as the previous option. However, contrary to B.4.1, a search facility would be created on the premises of the Designated Provider(s) or in a facility very near to the latter (to allow for a direct, highly secured connection, with searches being directly carried out by a central unit consisting of analysts from the US and possibly from EUROPOL and Member States. Monitoring compliance with safeguards and controls would be centralised, possibly involving oversight by external stakeholders. 
Options
A.2 and A.3 as well as options B.1 and B.2 have been discarded mainly for
reasons of legal and/or technical impracticability.
A.2:
The fact that this option depends on the consent of a third country makes it
weak. The policy option would also not have a guaranteed positive impact on
ensuring the full protection of fundamental rights. In addition, this policy
option is expected to have considerable implementation costs, arising from the
relocation of the existing EUROPOL TFTP analysts to the US Treasury.
Additionally, it is assumed that several Member States would also locate
analysts in the US which would generate additional costs. Finally, several
practical problems are likely, related to the US potential reluctance to allow
Member States full access to the system, besides possible legal implementation
difficulties.
A.3:
This option would considerably worsen the current situation. The US TFTP would
continue to exist, but only data from the Transatlantic zone could be searched
(and not intra-European zone data), which will make the system even less
adapted to EU intelligence requirements in the EU. In addition, in the absence
of the EU-US TFTP agreement, it may be unlikely that the US would accept
requests for searches from the EU and Member States and /or provide leads
spontaneously. Member States had no access to relevant data necessary for the prevention
of terrorist offenses in the EU.
B.1:
This option would also worsen the current situation as it could not effectively
contribute to preventing terrorism and enhancing security. Even if a
centralised system enhanced the technical capability at EU level, its
application would still be limited in view of the imperfect inputs due to the
lack of necessary intelligence and the absence of a connection with the Member
States. 
In
addition, this policy option would involve a significant initial outlay for developing
the physical and technical infrastructure of a centralised EU unit. It is
assumed that the US will not share the software and technical know-how under
this option. Initial set-up costs are estimated to be in the range of € 8
million to 10 million if a new, secure facility is to be created to ‘house’ the
system. If existing facilities are upgraded to meet the enhanced security
requirements, then the costs are estimated to be around € 3-3.5 million less
but are still considerably high. 
The
practicability of the centralised system is rather low, primarily due to the
anticipated limited utility of the system, in the absence of underlying
intelligence. It would be indispensable to set up clear data protection,
integrity and security arrangements, including the monitoring of compliance
with safeguards and judicial protection of citizens. 
The
acceptance of the centralised system is low, as Member States did not consider
it a viable option in the expert meetings and at Council Committees’
discussions.
B.2:
This option would clearly worsen the current situation. A decentralised system,
operated by each national law enforcement authority in isolation, would only
cater the intelligence requirements of individual Member States. Several may
even not have the capacity to implement a national TFTS. Due to this
deficiency, the overall objective of preventing terrorism could not be achieved
as effectively as with the current system or other possible options. 
In
addition, there would be a very negative impact on the protection of
fundamental rights of European citizens when processing financial messaging
data. The policy option would mean that different sets of data are transferred
to up to 27/28 Member States. Also, there is a great risk of links being missed
and fragmentation of intelligence.  
There
would be an important impact on Member States’ budgets as this policy option
would involve a significant initial outlay for developing the physical and
technical infrastructure for national TFTS, estimated to be in the range of €
101 million to 133 million. In addition, the annual running costs are expected
to be in the range of € 62 million to 68 million. These costs include the
maintenance costs of the TFTS, staff costs, operational costs such as training,
travel etc.

VI. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS

The
detailed analysis of impacts is limited to the short listed options, which
include six options concerning the structure of the system in general: the
status quo (A.1), three hybrid systems (B3.1-B.3.3) and two data retention
systems (B.4.1.-B.4.2). 
The
criteria used for assessing the options have been effectiveness, impact,
practicability and feasibility. Due to the fact that the specific policy
objectives are to a certain extent correlated and mutually interdependent, an
overall score is indicated for the effectiveness criterion. 
 Table 1.2        Overview of Assessment Criteria 
 Main Criterion || Parameters 
 Effectiveness || The extent to which the policy option will contribute to the achievement of: General policy objective ·          Preventing terrorism and enhancing security Specific policy objectives ·          Ensuring that the system is tailored to respond to EU’s intelligence requirements given its threat assessment ·          Increasing the EU and Member State capability to analyse financial messaging data and to identify links between individuals/ groups involved in terrorism or its financing. ·          Maintaining effective cooperation with the US and other third countries in the fight against terrorism ·          Ensuring that the analysis of financial messaging data covers all relevant service providers and message types (the extent to which this specific objective is fulfilled depends on the implementation choices of the scope of an EU TFTS and it is therefore not considered in the assessment of the options but in the assessment of the implementation choices only) ·          Ensuring full protection of the rights of European citizens to privacy and data protection when accessing and analysing financial messaging data. Examination under this specific objective will explore whether the rights of European citizens to privacy and data protection are ‘better’ protected than in the current situation. It will be also be examined whether the right to private life and the protection of personal data can be subjected to the limitations and conditions defined in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 52 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union. These limitations permit interferences that are in so far as necessary "in the interest of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others", "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This will also entail considerations on the proportionality of the policy options. The assessment also includes considerations on the different ‘stages’ for which appropriate data protection measures will need to be put in place, namely (if applicable depending on the policy option) for the preparation of bulk data, its transport, the storage, the running of searches, the saving of search results and the dissemination of search results. Especially with regard to the latter, in a system which involves multiple Member States, it will also be important to consider whether different levels of Member State intelligence / law enforcement authorities are actually allowed to exchange information, even if they would be willing to do so. Issues such as access, rectification / erasure and redress should also be taken into account. 
 Impact[19] || Economic impact (see also Annex 2): ·          Direct costs to EU and MS budgets of implementing and administering the policy option; The calculation of the costs relies on information provided by the US on the establishment of their TFTP system at a meeting with the contractor for the Impact Assessment study. As the current US system is the only comparable mechanism in place, there was no other possibility to work with other actual figures in this context. The costs are further detailed in Annex 2. Administrative and compliance costs for affected businesses; As a result of the further research on the market of financial messaging services, it has become clear that, if other Designated Providers are included in an EU TFTS, the costs may vary per type of provider, also depending on how they currently store information on payments. ·          Indirect costs to the economy in general; ·          Wider economic impact resulting from reduced threat and incidence of terrorism   Social impact:  public perception of safety, security and equality The social impact relates to a large extent on difficult to prove perceptions related to a terrorist threat in public opinion. Evidence for such a perception is difficult to obtain. That is why the assessment of this criterion will need to rely on probability estimations. Impact on fundamental rights: assessed as part of the achievement/effectiveness Political impact: Likely impact on relations with the US and other third countries. 
 Practicability || Risk assessment:  can risks be identified and either mitigated or allocated and managed? Affordability: are sufficient budget funds available to implement the option? Implementation capacity: what about availability of technical expertise, physical resources e.g. buildings, offices etc., IT capacity? As part of this assessment, it will be important to look at the extent to which a maximum level of IT and physical security can be offered in order to ensure the protection of personal data. Complementarity  with the US system: does the policy option allow for effective interface with the US-TFTP ensuring that intelligence does not fall through the cracks Legislative issues: to what extent new legislative instruments have to be introduced and/ or existing ones changed as a result of implementing a particular policy option? 
 Feasibility || Political feasibility; are policy and decision makers likely to sign up to a particular policy option and what would be the main hurdles in this respect? Public acceptability: would the option be acceptable to the general public? As for the reasons referred to above, no broad public consultation could be carried out, the analysis of this point will need to rely on the individual views by certain stakeholders and some citizens expressed after the publication as well as on assumptions based on comparable public input, such as that received in context of the entry into force of the EU US TFTP Agreement. 
The
economic impacts of the options have to rely on estimates and assumptions.
Above all the possible economic benefits are not easy to measure, even though
the European Commission is aware that in other contexts, such as in relation to
health issues this might be undertaken by applying the "Quality adjusted
life year" methodology. In the context of terrorism, however, it appears
impossible and disproportionate to try to weigh by figures the value of human
lives that could be saved by preventing terrorist attacks. It is also not
possible to predict in detail the economic benefits of such a system helping to
prevent terrorist activity and the damages it causes to the economy or
state-owned or private property as the extent of attacks and the damages caused
depend on a great number of unpredictable variables. Likewise, the social and
psychological impact of terrorist attacks is difficult to quantify (e.g. the
Madrid 2004 attacks had 1% casualties but a continental wide impact).
In
addition, it needs to be recalled that the present mechanism is meant to be a security
policy instrument. Data available in this context is highly confidential in
order to prevent that those that shall be tackled by the instrument are not in
a position to circumvent it or adapt their criminal and terrorist behaviour in
a way that the system would not be able to detect them.  This limits for this
specific Impact Assessment the possibility to provide the same detail when
identifying, assessing and comparing impacts as one may be used to from similar
exercises in other policy fields. Finally, a great amount of information used for
the analysis carried out stems from a third country source (US) that has
practical experience with a similar system to fight terrorism and its
financing. This information is to a large extent classified as it is essential
for the security situation in this country (US). Even if it cannot be made
public in this assessment, the European Commission was able to consider
important parts of it in its analysis of the issue at stake.
Consequently,
the indications below had to be based on certain assumptions which are laid
down and further explained in Annex 1. Annex 2 includes a
detailed list to explain the costs caused by the individual options. 
The assessment criteria
are, where feasible,  accompanied by a ‘rating’, which ‘scores’ the policy
options in relation to the status quo option, using the following scale:
 -1 to -10 || 0 || 1 to 10 
 Costs/ worsening of situation compared to ‘status-quo’ -1 = little negative impact -10 = huge negative impact || No change from ‘status-quo’ || Benefits/ improvement compared to ‘status-quo’ 1= little positive impact 10= huge positive impact 
The absolute value of 1
to 10 is not really important.  The ratings of the options matter in relation
to the status quo and to each other. The explanations for the ratings are
elaborated in the respective assessment of each criterion. 
Option A
Status Quo (Continuation of EU-US TFTP Agreement)
 Category of impact || Rating      (-10 to +10) || Explanation 
 Achievement of objectives/ Effectiveness/ Fundamental Rights 
 No change. The EU and the Member States will continue to be able to request searches to be run by the US and will receive leads provided spontaneously by the US. These will have some positive impact on the prevention of terrorism and enhancing security. The current system is not tailored to the EU’s intelligence requirements and threat assessment, which may limit the searches which can be requested by the Member States (e.g. as certain countries or categories of messages may not be included). The current relations and coverage of Data Providers and message types would remain unaltered as well as the EU and Member States capabilities in this respect. However, the EU US Agreement on the TFTP, as confirmed by the two reviews, is not only a valuable instrument for effective cooperation between the two parties in fight against terrorism but it also has turned out to increasingly serve EU security needs by enhancing reciprocity. Fundamental rights: The situation as described in the Commission’s report on the second joint review on the application of the EU US TFTP Agreement will be kept. The two reviews on the application of the Agreement by the Commission have verified that the comprehensive safeguards included in it, in particular those related to personal data protection, are properly implemented  and that no major concerns exist. There would be no additional data collection mechanism which could infringe personal data protection rules.                                                              0 
 Economic impact 
 Direct financial cost - implementation costs || 0 || No change. 
 Benefits || 0 || No change. 
 Other impact 
 Social impact || 0 || No change. 
 Political impact || 0 || No change. 
 Other issues 
 Practicability || 0 || Some improvement in the longer term may occur, as for example Member States will make more use of the possibility to request searches to be run 
 Feasibility || 0 || No change 
Option
B.3.1 Hybrid system - The EU TFTS coordination and analytical service
 Category of impact || Rating      (-10 to +10) || Explanation 
 Achievement of objectives/ Effectiveness/ Fundamental rights 
 Overall positive impact on the extent to which the policy option can contribute to the prevention of terrorism and enhancing security.  A hybrid system managed by EUROPOL but with national inputs in terms of running searches and analysing their results would ensure that the specific intelligence requirements of the EU and Member States are fully taken into account and that the system is geared towards the specific “EU threat”.  It can be expected that, in the medium term, a joint TFTS, i.e. with EUROPOL and Member States working alongside each other, would lead to increased trust and synergies, thus overcoming scepticism and boosting the EU cooperation in the fight against terrorism. The policy option would increase the capacity of the EU and Member States to independently search and analyse financial messaging data and to identify and map links.     Fundamental rights: The limitation of the rights to privacy and data protection, through application of Article 52, could arguably be regarded as proportional, i.e. necessary and appropriate for the purpose of combating terrorism over other less intrusive alternatives, considering additional security gains expected from the system. In any case robust data protection guarantees and safeguards will have to be put in place as the system implies an interference with private life and the protection of personal data.                                                             0 
 Economic impact 
 Direct financial cost - implementation costs (see also Annex 2)   || -3 || Impact on EU Budget:  Initial set-up costs are estimated to be in the range of € 5.3 million to 6.5 million if new, secure facilities are to be created to ‘house’ the systems. If existing facilities are upgraded to meet the enhanced security requirements, then the costs are estimated  to be reduced by around € 3-3.5 million Impact on Member State Budget:   This policy option would involve a small initial outlay on part of Member States (€ 354,000 to 503,000) as they would need to develop protocols for liaising with the central EU unit; 14member States would be relocating TFTS analysts to the centralised EU agency The Designated Provider will have to invest in the range of € 455,800 to 708,000. Impact on EU Budget: running costs are expected to be in the order of € 6.3-6.7 million Impact on Member State Budget:   the annual running costs are expected to be in the order to € 2 million. These costs include staff costs and operational costs such as training, travel etc. Impact on Designated Provider: the annual running costs are expected to be in the order of e 0.7 million, stemming from the salary and operational costs. Administrative costs are estimated to be in the range of € 46,190 to 79,060 for the EU, € 70,280 for the Member States and € 15,354 for the Designated Provider. 
 Benefits || +3 || The policy option is expected to reduce the level of minor terrorist activity and the likelihood of a major terrorist attack This would result in the prevention of deaths and casualties as well as financial losses caused by the attacks themselves and subsequent consequences. 
 Other impact 
 Social impact || 0 || It is likely that some positive impact would occur, as public perception of safety and security should improve if, like it is the case in the second joint review report on the EU US TFTP Agreement, actual cases in which the system helped to prevent terrorist acts, are presented to the public by a report.  However, as letters to the European Commission at the time of the entry into force of the EU US TFTP Agreement have shown, citizens are very sensitive regarding increased data control by authorities which could outweigh the positive social impact. 
 Political impact || 0 || Neutral impact. There have been no indications from US side that such a system would be regarded as detrimental to their interests. 
 Other issues 
 Practicability || +1 || The overall practicability of the policy option is reasonable, primarily because it would combine EU and national search capacities in a single system. In the medium term and provided information is increasingly shared, it is expected to boost the overall analytical capacity of the EU. The option would allow for effective interface with the US system, provided it is built on the same parameters. It would be paramount to set up clear data protection, integrity and security arrangements, including the monitoring of compliance with safeguards and judicial protection of citizens. 
 Feasibility || -1 || Given their potential involvement in the “core” of this TFTS, Member States may overall consider this policy option politically viable.  There might be some resistance regarding additional expenses due to the financial budgetary constraints caused by the current economic crisis. 
Option
B.3.2 Hybrid system - The EU TFTS Extraction Service
 Category of impact || Rating      (-10 to +10) || Explanation 
 Achievement of objectives/ Effectiveness/ Fundamental rights 
 Overall some positive impact on the extent to which the policy option can contribute to the prevention of terrorism and enhancing security. A hybrid system in which Europol would run searches on behalf of national law enforcement agencies and only delivers search results would primarily be responsive to the specific intelligence requirements of the individual Member States. By attributing a “bureau” function to EUROPOL and not allowing it to undertake analysis of national searches, the benefits of EU level analysis would not occur and there is a risk of links being missed and fragmentation of intelligence. Fundamental rights: The limitation of the rights to privacy and data protection, through application of Article 52, could arguably be regarded proportional, i.e. necessary and appropriate for the purpose of combating terrorism over other less intrusive alternatives, considering the positive security gains expected. In any case robust data protection guarantees and safeguards will have to be put in place as the system implies an interference with private life and the protection of personal data. Due to the system’s architecture, there would be a high risk that the searches are insufficiently narrowed down and will thus contain many “false positives”, i.e. details on innocent persons, which are subsequently forwarded to the Member States without any further central control of their use.                                                  0 
 Economic impact 
 Direct financial cost - implementation costs (see also Annex 2) || -3 || Impact on EU Budget:  Initial set-up costs are estimated to be in the range of € 5.3 million to 6.5 million if new, secure facilities are to be created to ‘house’ the systems. If existing facilities are upgraded to meet the enhanced security requirements, then the costs are estimated  to be reduced by around € 3-3.5 million Impact on Member State Budget:   This policy option would involve a small initial outlay on part of Member States (€ 354,000 to 503,000) as they would need to develop protocols for liaising with the central EU unit. The Designated Provider will have to invest in the range of € 455,800 to 708,000. Impact on EU Budget: running costs are expected to be in the order of € 4.9-5.3 million Impact on Member State Budget:   the annual running costs are expected to be in the order to € 10 million. These costs include staff costs and operational costs such as analytical capacity, control and oversight, training, travel etc. Impact on Designated Provider: the annual running costs are expected to be in the order of € 0.7 million, stemming from the salary and operational costs. Administrative costs are estimated to be in the range of € 46,190 to 79,060 for the EU, € 70,280 for the Member States and e 15,354 for the Designated Provider. 
 Benefits || +2 || The policy option is expected to reduce the level of minor terrorist activity and the likelihood of a major terrorist attack.  This would result in the prevention of deaths and casualties as well as financial losses caused by the attacks themselves and subsequent consequences. However, by attributing a “bureau” function to EUROPOL and not allowing it to undertake analysis of national searches, the benefits of EU level analysis would not occur and there is a risk of links being missed and fragmentation of intelligence. , there is a very high risk that the searches are insufficiently narrowed down and will thus contain many “false positives”, i.e. details on innocent persons, which are subsequently forwarded to the Member States without any further central control of their use. 
 Other impact 
 Social impact || 0 || It is likely that some positive impact would occur, as public perception of safety and security may improve if, like it is the case in the second joint review report on the EU US TFTP Agreement, actual cases in which the system helped to prevent terrorist acts, are presented to the public by a report.  The TFTS shows its effectiveness (and if this is communicated to the public).  However, as letters to the European Commission at the time of the entry into force of the EU US TFTP Agreement have shown, citizens are very sensitive regarding increased data control by authorities which could outweigh the positive social impact. 
 Political impact || 0 || Neutral impact. As above. 
 Other issues 
 Practicability || -1 || The overall practicability of the policy option is rather low, primarily because it would combine EU searches with national analytical capacity in a single system, reducing the extent to which synergies can be created and a full “EU picture” generated. It would be paramount to set up clear data protection, integrity and security arrangements, including the monitoring of compliance with safeguards and judicial protection of citizens. 
 Feasibility || -1 || It is likely that a fair share of Member States,  especially those with well-developed law enforcement bodies dealing with counter-terrorism and those being sceptical about EUROPOL capacity to provide effective analyses of search results, will consider this policy option acceptable. Other Member States, however, with less capacities and/or a better opinion on EUROPOL analysis abilities find this option less acceptable. There might be some resistance regarding additional expenses due to the financial budgetary constraints caused by the current economic crisis. 
Option
B.3.3 Hybrid system - The FIU coordination service
 Category of impact || Rating      (-10 to +10) || Explanation 
 Achievement of objectives/ Effectiveness/ Fundamental rights 
 Overall some positive impact on the extent to which the policy option can contribute to the prevention of terrorism and enhancing security.  The existing level of connectivity between the FIUs would, to some extent, limit the risk of links being missed and fragmentation of intelligence. Search results would primarily be responsive to the specific intelligence requirements of the individual Member States. Furthermore there is a risk that the system will separate financial intelligence from other intelligence and this separation could constitute a major drawback and a narrowness of vision.  It would primarily enhance capabilities at national level, with FIUs already having substantial expertise in the area of terrorism financing.  The policy option would provide the US and third countries with a single point of contact. Fundamental rights: The extent to which the limitation of the rights to privacy and data protection, through application of Article 52, would be proportional, i.e. necessary and appropriate for the purpose of combating terrorism over other less intrusive alternatives, is questionable. Whilst security gains are likely to occur, these may not outweigh the disadvantages of the system’s decentralised architecture. In any case robust data protection guarantees and safeguards will have to be put in place as the system implies an interference with private life and the protection of personal data.                                                    0 
 Economic impact 
 Direct financial cost - implementation costs (see also Annex 2) || -3 || Impact on EU Budget:  Initial set-up costs are estimated to be in the range of € 5.5 million to 6.8 million if new, secure facilities are to be created to ‘house’ the systems. If existing facilities are upgraded to meet the enhanced security requirements, then the costs are estimated  to be reduced by around € 3-3.5 million Impact on Member State Budget:   This policy option would involve a small initial outlay on part of Member States (€ 354,000 to 503,000) as they would need to develop protocols for liaising with the central EU unit; 14member States would be relocating TFTS analysts to the centralised EU agency The Designated Provider will have to invest in the range of € 455,800 to 708,000. Impact on EU Budget: running costs are expected to be in the order of € 5.6-6 million Impact on Member State Budget:   the annual running costs are expected to be in the order to € 22 million. Member States would need to train and deploy TFTS analysts and also enhance their oversight, control and data protection capacity. Impact on Designated Provider: the annual running costs are expected to be in the order of € 0.7 million, stemming from the salary and operational costs. Administrative costs are estimated to be in the range of € 46,190 to  79,060 for the EU, € 70,280 for the Member States and € 15,354 for the Designated Provider. 
 Benefits || +2 || The policy option is expected to reduce the level of minor terrorist activity and the likelihood of a major terrorist attack. This would result in the prevention of deaths and casualties as well as financial losses caused by the attacks themselves and subsequent consequences. However, given the risk that the system will separate financial intelligence from other intelligence and that this separation could constitute a major drawback and a narrowness of vision, the possible benefits could be reduced.   
 Other impact 
 Social impact || 0 || Neutral effect. Public perception of safety and security will improve if the TFTS shows its effectiveness (and if this is communicated to the public). This may be limited by the fact that overall awareness of FIUs is low. In addition, as here are several authorities involved (all EU FIUs), it is likely that EU citizens would consider that they were being ‘watched’ by a multiplicity of national FIUs. 
 Political impact || 0 || Neutral impact. As above. 
 Other issues 
 Practicability || -1 || The overall practicability of the policy option is limited, considering the lack of a clear EU involvement, a potentially too narrow focus and the substantial efforts required for its set up. Also, the extent to which national FIUs are well developed and have the legal standing and capacity to undertake the tasks required will vary. It would be paramount to set up clear data protection, integrity and security arrangements, including the monitoring of compliance with safeguards and judicial protection of citizens. 
 Feasibility || 0 || The extent to which Member States will consider the policy option acceptable will vary greatly, with some (including the initial proposing country) being very much in favour and others very much against.  At the level of the EU, there will be concerns about the creation of a new EU body. There might be some resistance regarding additional expenses due to the financial budgetary constraints caused by the current economic crisis. 
Option
B.4.1 Data retention / extraction – Data retention regime
 Category of impact || Rating      (-10 to +10) || Explanation 
 Achievement of objectives/ Effectiveness/ Fundamental rights 
 Small positive impact on the extent to which the policy option can contribute to the prevention of terrorism and enhancing security, provided that access to the data retained is also granted to Europol and/or Member States.  There is a risk of links being missed and fragmentation of evidence in the absence of some form of coordination at EU level of the searches and the use of search results which would primarily be responsive to the specific intelligence requirements of the individual Member States. Fundamental rights: The extent to which the limitation of the rights to privacy and data protection, through application of Article 52, would be proportional, i.e. necessary and appropriate for the purpose of combating terrorism over other less intrusive alternatives, strongly depends on whether Europol and the Member States would also have access to the system. As non-analysts would run searches, there is a great risk of ‘false positives’ , i.e. details on innocent persons, which are subsequently forwarded to the Member States. Furthermore each Member State would be initiating its own search hence no uniform approach would be ensured in accessing the personal data and their handling. Entrusting the designated provider with running the searches would further increase the risk of infringements of data protection requirements. In any case robust data protection guarantees and safeguards would have to be put in place as the system implies an interference with private life and the protection of personal data.                                                 -1 
 Economic impact 
 Direct financial cost - implementation costs (see also Annex 2) || -2 || Under this option the EU would develop and install the TFTS on the Designated Provider’s premises. At EU level, a system and protocol would need to be developed, for liaising with the Designated Provider to request searches and to obtain search results. These are estimated to amount to around € 0.7 and 1.2 million. Member States would contribute to the development of protocols in relation to liaison with the Designated Provider. These would entail a relatively small cost (€ 284,000 to 433,000). The Designated Provider would also have to adapt internal systems and procedures to meet the requirements of the EU TFTS; obtain security clearance for staff involved in TFTS and provide them with initial training. The costs of the above activities are expected to be in the range of € 759,800 to € 913,000. Impact on EU Budget: running costs are expected to be in the order of € 1.8 million Impact on Member State Budget:   the annual running costs are expected to be in the order to € 1.7 million. These costs include staff costs and operational costs such as training, travel etc. Impact on Designated Provider: the annual running costs are expected to be in the order of € 1.6 million, stemming from the salary and operational costs of 11 FTE posts Administrative costs are estimated to be in the range of € 46,190 to EUR 79,060 for the EU, € 70,280 for the Member States and € 15,354 for the Designated Provider. 
 Benefits || +1 || The policy option is expected to reduce the level of minor terrorist activity and the likelihood of a major terrorist attack.  This would result in the prevention of deaths and casualties as well as financial losses caused by the attacks themselves and subsequent consequences. However, given the risk of fragmentation of evidence in the absence of some form of coordination at EU level of the searches and the use of search results the extent of the benefits should be rather limited.  This is also due to the element that non-analysts would run searches which creates a greater risk of ‘false positives’.   
 Other impact 
 Social impact || 0 || Some positive impact would occur, as public perception of safety and security may improve if the TFTS shows its effectiveness and if concrete case examples can be demonstrated as it is the case in the report on the second joint review of the EU US TFTP Agreement. However, based on some citizen letters received by the Commission in the context of the entry into force of that Agreement, the fact that this system would constitute an additional basis for the retention of personal data that public authorities would have access to this data on the premises of the Designated Providers is very likely to neutralise the positive impact. 
 Political impact || -4 || Negative impact. The US would consider that this model would not be effective compared to the current practice.  
 Other issues 
 Practicability || -4 || The overall practicability of the policy option is rather low in general, due to the reduced possibility to create synergies and a full “EU picture”. This is further worsened various legal and technical reasons. Applying a data retention regime on Designated Providers could require disproportionate efforts. For example, for the current Designated Provider, a requirement to extract data on transactions of individual persons and organisations (i.e. single account holders) would change the business model of the latter entirely. Legally, it would also be complex to create an instrument which would require data retention by Designated Providers, possibly for the sole purpose of extracting data requested by a third country (i.e. the US). Finally, it would be paramount to set up clear data protection, integrity and security arrangements. 
 Feasibility || 0 || The policy option would address some of the concerns raised in the European Parliament, who had called for an extraction system only.  Member States, however, were less supportive. 
Option
B.4.2 Data retention / extraction – Data retention regime and extraction system
 Category of impact || Rating      (-10 to +10) || Explanation 
 Achievement of objectives/ Effectiveness/ Fundamental rights 
 Small positive impact on the extent to which the policy option can contribute to the prevention of terrorism and enhancing security, provided that access to the data retained is also granted to Europol and/or Member States.  There is a risk of links being missed and fragmentation of evidence in the absence of some form of coordination at EU level of the searches and the use of search results which would primarily be responsive to the specific intelligence requirements of the individual Member States. Fundamental rights: The extent to which the limitation of the rights to privacy and data protection, through application of Article 52, would be proportional, i.e. necessary and appropriate for the purpose of combating terrorism over other less intrusive alternatives, strongly depends on whether Europol and the Member States would also have access to the system. As non-analysts would run searches, there is a great risk of ‘false positives’, i.e. details on innocent persons, which are subsequently forwarded to the Member States. Furthermore each Member State would be initiating its own search hence no uniform approach would be ensured in accessing the data and their handling. Entrusting the designated provider with running the searches would further increase the risk of infringements of data protection requirements. In any case robust data protection guarantees and safeguards will have to be put in place as the system implies an interference with private life and the protection of personal data.                                                 -1 
 Economic impact 
 Direct financial cost - implementation costs (see also Annex 2) || -3 || Under this option the EU would develop and install the TFTS on the Designated Provider’s premises. TFTS analysts would be located on Designated Provider’s premises (both, EU and national analysts) Initial EU set-up costs are estimated to be in the range of € 2.2 million to 2.9 million. Member States would contribute to the development of protocols in relation to liaison with the Designated Provider and would incur relocation cost of national analyst (€ 354,000 - €503,000). The Designated Provider(s) would also have to adapt internal systems and procedures to meet the requirements of the EU TFTS; obtain security clearance for staff involved in TFTS and provide them with initial training. The costs of the above activities are expected to be in the range of € 755,000 to € 907,000. Impact on EU Budget: running costs are expected to be in the order of € 4.7 -5.1 million The annual running costs for Member States are expected to be in the order to € 2 million. These costs include staff costs and operational costs such as training, travel etc. Impact on Designated Provider: the annual running costs are expected to be in the order of EUR 0.7 million, stemming from salary and operational costs. Administrative costs are estimated to be in the range of € 46,190 to € 79,060 for the EU, € 70,280 for the Member States and € 15,354 for the Designated Provider. 
 Benefits || +2 || The policy option is expected to reduce the level of minor terrorist activity and the likelihood of a major terrorist attack to a greater extent than the previous due to the actual presence of Europol and Member States’ experts at the Designated Provider’s premises.  Important would be that access to the data is provided to Member States and Europol. This would result in the prevention of deaths and casualties as well as financial losses caused by the attacks themselves and subsequent consequences. 
 Other impact 
 Social impact || 0 || Some positive impact would occur, as public perception of safety and security may improve if the TFTS shows its effectiveness as referred to above.  However, the fact that this system would constitute an additional basis for the retention of personal data that public authorities would have access to this data on the premises of the Designated Providers would neutralise the positive impact. 
 Political impact || -4 || Negative impact. The US considers that this model would not be effective compared to the current practice.  
 Other issues 
 Practicability || -4 || The overall practicability of the policy option is rather low in general, due to the reduced possibility to create synergies and a full “EU picture”. This is further worsened various legal and technical reasons. Applying a data retention regime on Designated Providers could require disproportionate efforts. For example, for the current Designated Provider, a requirement to extract data on transactions of individual persons and organisations (i.e. single account holders) would change the business model of the latter entirely. Legally, it would also be complex to create an instrument which would require data retention by Designated Providers, possibly for the sole purpose of extracting data requested by a third country (i.e. the US). Finally, it would be paramount to set up clear data protection, integrity and security arrangements. 
 Feasibility || 0 || The policy option would address some of the concerns raised in the European Parliament, who had called for an extraction system only. Member States, however, did not express explicit support for this option in the meetings where this was discussed. 
All
options and sub-options above are regarded as possible implementing choices and
are considered for comparison in this impact assessment. For practical reasons
and as regards the scope of a possible new system the analysis of the
implementing choices and their comparison with regard to the possible new
system will only be carried out after having chosen a preferred implementing
choice.

VII. COMPARING THE OPTIONS
VII.1
The structure of a new system

Each
system has advantages and disadvantages, but based on the analysis detailed
above, the hybrid policy options receive the highest scores. Of these, the
EU TFTS coordination and analytical service (B3.1) is considered to be able to
contribute most to the achievement of the policy objectives. In particular, due
to its ‘shared approach’ it is expected to be most successful in increasing the
EU and Member State capability to analyse financial messaging data and to
identify links between individuals/ groups involved in terrorism or its
financing.
This
needs to be weighed against potential benefits and developments in the baseline
scenario. At a dedicated meeting at EUROPOL in September 2012 and at a meeting
hosted by the European Commission in November 2012, Member States reported that
they make more and more use of the "reciprocity" Articles 9 and 10 of
the EU-US TFTP Agreement which shows that that system is transforming gradually
into a reciprocal one. It provides Member States with information that they did
not have at their disposal or did not benefit from at the time when the system
was introduced. The reason for this is that they had not been sufficiently
aware of this right. An awareness raising campaign by Europol as well as visits
to Member States’ capitals for information purposes carried out by Europol representatives
has changed the practice and perception of the EU US TFTP agreement in Member
States. 
In
addition, compared to option B.3.1 the baseline scenario reveals a number of
further advantages. Contrary to option B.3.1 it does not lead to the accumulation
of additional data and meets therefore no additional concerns with regard to an
impairment of fundamental rights, in particular personal data protection
provisions. 
On one
side the baseline scenario shows that the evolution goes towards meeting in an
increasingly effective way the policy objectives of a possible EU TFTS, on the
other it does not raise additional concerns with regard to an impairment of
fundamental rights, in particular personal data protection provisions. Under
these circumstances it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the necessity
and proportionality of an additional system at present. In contrast to the
situation at the time of the Council’s call to the Commission in July 2010[20]
or even at the time of the publication of the Commission’s Communication in
July 2011, Member States now take increasingly advantage of the data provided
in the context of the TFTP. While concrete Member States’ requests cannot be
revealed in this context for confidentiality reasons, the latest Council discussions
have clearly demonstrated a decreasing interest of Member States in
establishing an additional EU system. 
Furthermore,
option B.3.1 would lead – like all options related to a new system – to
considerable additional costs:
The
initial set-up costs for option B.3.1 are estimated to be in the range of € 5.3
million to € 6.5 million if new, secure facilities are to be created to ‘house’
the systems. If existing facilities are upgraded to meet the enhanced security
requirements, then the costs are estimated to be reduced by around 3-3.5
million but still could amount to € 3 million.
As also
shown in part VI above, there would also be a direct impact on at least a
number of Member States’ budgets estimated between € 354.000 and 503.000 as
they would need to develop protocols for liaising with the central EU unit. 
As
regards the costs for the Designated Providers, estimations of the investments
needed are of € 455.800 to € 708.000 per Provider, to which running and further
administrative costs would have to be added. 
Last
but not least, the impact on the EU Budget regarding the running costs is
expected to be in the order of € 6.3-6.7 million and on the EU Member States’
budgets of annually € 2 million. 
These
disadvantages show that maintaining the baseline scenario needs to be a serious
option as well.

VII.2
Implementing choices for a
new system
 
 A) Choices for the purpose of an EU TFTS 
 1 Combating terrorism || Access for the purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection, or prosecution of terrorism or terrorist financing. This requires evidence of a proven nexus. 
 2 Combating terrorism and serious organised crime || Access for the purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection, or prosecution of terrorism or terrorist financing and for the purpose of other serious crimes. 
 B) Choices for the scope of an EU TFTS 
 1 One Designated Provider || The system would only work with a single Designated Provider and hence exclusively access, search and analyse FIN messages. 
 2 Multiple Designated Providers || The system would work with multiple Designated Providers and hence access, search and analyse FIN and other types of financial messages / other types of data, potentially “suitable” categories or systems could include the Automated Clearing Houses, selected e-money services and selected remittance services. 

VII.2.1 The purpose of a new system

As
mentioned before, during the preparation of the Impact Assessment and due to the
linkage between money laundering and terrorist financing in existing
legislation, a number of Member States expressed the wish that the Commission
should also look at the possibility of using a new EU TFTS also for the purpose
of fighting organised crime. 
In
principle two possible approaches could be contemplated:
- the
current approach under the TFTP, based on an access to the system for the
purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection, or prosecution of
terrorism or terrorist financing. This requires evidence of a proven nexus.
- a
broader approach, allowing access to the system for the purpose of the
prevention, investigation, detection, or prosecution of terrorism or terrorist
financing and for the purpose of other serious crimes
Expanding
the purpose of a new system by including the fight against serious organised
crime would undeniably enable law enforcement authorities to obtain additional
financial data which could help in their fight against organised crime.
However, overall, the widening of a new system’s purpose would have overriding
negative effects. In particular, it would raise concerns over its
proportionality in view of its impact on the fundamental rights of those whose
data would be affected. 
With
regard to human rights the impact would be very negative, primarily due to the
disproportionally large volumes of the sets of bulk data which would be
obtained from the Designed Provider(s), which can be accessed and searched
without requiring the same level of justification as when limited to terrorism
as the term of “serious crime” is much broader. Data would be processed for all
serious crimes with a potential risk of uncertainties and diverging
interpretations as to what is to be regarded as “serious” unless very rigid
criteria, difficult to define, are agreed on what constitutes a nexus to
serious crime. This means that the limitations to the rights to privacy and
data protection implied by this option, although in principle possible pursuant
to Article 52 of the Charter, runs a high risk of being not proportional, i.e.
necessary and appropriate for the purpose of combating terrorism compared to
other less intrusive alternatives. 
Another
consequence of broadening the access would be that the US and EU systems would
be different and not complementary. The US has limited the purpose of its TFTP
to terrorism and terrorism financing only. Broadening the scope on the part of
the EU might have a positive side effect for the US as they could benefit from
the larger sets of bulk data that would be stored on the EU TFTS. However, this
would create a lack of reciprocity and an imbalance to the mutual availability
of data.  In addition, third countries would be concerned about the fact that
even more data on their citizen may be included.
In
addition, the broad approach would inevitably lead to a substantial increase in
costs. The implementing and running cost would rise as a higher number of
analysts would be required to run all the additional searches for serious
organised crimes and analyse the corresponding results; and higher volumes of
data would need to be handled. However, the exact increase is difficult to
estimate as there is no experience for such kind of system.
This choice
would also likely have a negative social and political impact. Even if the
general public perception of security and safety may increase, citizens have become
sensitive when it comes to collecting personal data, in particular regarding
their financial activities. The public perception that citizens and their
activities are increasingly controlled by State entities might rise. The
negotiations of the EU-US TFTP agreement have shown the extreme sensitivity
around the use of privately-held or privately-collected personal data for law
enforcement purposes which was reflected in discussions at the European
Parliament and led to a disapproval of the first draft agreement by this
institution. Therefore, expanding the system to cover all serious crimes would require
clear definitions and very rigid criteria as to when a search can be run which
can cause difficulties regarding their implementation, in particular in the
hybrid models of the policy options B. This is putting into question the
overall feasibility of such a system.
One can
finally emphasise that, due to the very important negative effects on the
protection of fundamental rights, political support by Member States and
European Parliament has proven to be very low for a broad approach encompassing
organised crime related data. Whilst some Member States considered the
expansion of the purpose of the TFTS, theoretically, beneficial, none
considered its expansion to all serious crimes acceptable or desirable.

VII.2.2
The scope of a new system

On the
basis of the analysis of above referred payment categories, depending on the implementing
choice, the scale of global and EU transactions covered for the monitoring and
tracking of terrorists and those financing terrorism would vary. However, it
will be key that the implementing measure chosen ensure that individual
transactions are monitored and tracked in the most efficient way, thus ensuring
the widest coverage of transactions with the lowest number of potential
additional Designated Providers. When taking into consideration criteria such
as size, relevance, adequateness, market concentration and FIN duplication,
other players, such as Automated Clearing Houses, e-money and Remittance
services could also be valid and feasible sources of information for the
monitoring and tracking of financial movements. 
With
regard to the scope of the system, including more than just FIN messages used
by the current Designated Provider (option B) 2 – Multiple Designated Providers)
would present clear advantages. 
The
analysis showed that FIN messages represent around 1% of the total payments
market, which corresponds to nearly all (international) cross-border transfers.
This means that domestic and intra-EU payments, as well as e-money transfers
and remittances are not covered by the current system, whilst they could
certainly be of great added value in identifying and mapping terrorist suspects
and their financial movements. 
If an EU
system is to be better adapted to the specific EU interests, then it would be
useful to also have access to transaction data to track financial movements
within the EU via the above mentioned other providers. 
It
would also be important to ensure that the system would be ‘future proof’, by
taking account of fast-growing new players, especially in the e-money services.

However,
a proliferation of transaction data and related Designated Providers, within an
EU context, faces major concerns regarding the proportionality of such a
broadened scope. There will be significant impact on privacy and data protection
rights. Therefore the potential addition of Designated Providers would need to
be accompanied by rigid conditions, safeguards and control measures, to ensure
appropriate data protection and oversight.  
The much
larger overall dataset to search would also inevitably lead to the necessity
for the EU and the Member States to invest considerably in additional human
resources and technical equipment for the collection and analyses of these
data. The newly Designated Providers would also need to invest in setting up
systems like the one the current Designated Provider has in order to comply
with their new obligations. However, the exact and overall increase in costs is
difficult to prove by concrete figures as there is no experience with such kind
of system.

VII.3 Elaboration of the Preferred
Option, incl. implementing choices

If an
EU TFTS system was to be established, the comparison of those options single
out policy option B.3.1 dedicated to the fight against terrorism funding and with
a scope including Multiple Designated Providers. The system would thus be a
hybrid system, which would make use of data from different money transfer
services, including those linked to traditional banking, remittances and
e-money. 
However,
as demonstrated above, it appears difficult to justify the EU added value of
the introduction of a new and broader system. Potential impacts in terms of
fundamental rights and substantial additional costs raise serious doubts with
regard to the cost effectiveness of the establishment of a new system at this
point of time compared to the existing possibilities of the TFTP and its
positively assessed implementation. 
Consequently,
maintaining the baseline scenario and not presenting a legislative proposal for
the introduction of an EU TFTS is the preferred option at this stage. 

VIII.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

In
close co-operation with Member States, the Commission will closely monitor the practical
application of the EU US TFTP Agreement and the use of its reciprocity clauses
by Member States and its practical impact and benefit for Member States’ work
on fighting terrorism and its financing. The Commission is actively involved in
evaluating on an annual basis the application of the EU US TFTP Agreement in
close-co-operation with relevant national data protection authorities, EUROPOL
and the US. In addition, the Commission is in close contact with EUROPOL’s
Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) and carefully analyses the JSB’s report on
EUROPOL’s work, including in the context of the application of the EU-US TFTP
Agreement. All this will support the Commission in monitoring whether there are
changes to the status quo which would provide new and relevant arguments for
proposing the establishment of a new EU TFTS system based on the preferred
options identified in this Impact Assessment. 
The
Commission intends to report back to the European Parliament and the Council on
new developments and corresponding evaluations one year after the publication
of this Impact Assessment. 

IX. Annexes


IX.1 Annex 1 Overview of Specific
Assumptions 

For each
policy options certain specific assumptions have been made regarding the costs
and benefits. These are set out below.
Table 1.1        
Specific Assumptions underpinning the
Calculations for Different Policy Options
 Policy Option || Costs || Benefits 
 A.1 – Status quo or Baseline || Cost to EU budget §          Verification and authorisation of US requests by Europol: 3 FTE X 2 days per month §          Initiating/ coordinating requests for spontaneous provision of information: 3 FTE X 1 day per month §          Independent EU overseer §          Independent review of the EU-TFTP Agreement §          Monitoring and reporting by the Commission The following running costs and administrative costs would accrue to the DP: §          Salary costs of 3 FTE overseers, 0.25 FTE involved in preparing and transmitting data, 0.25 FTE involved in provision of legal advice and guidance, 0.25 FTE involved in conducting external audit §          Updating the software and hardware §          Staff training – 5 to 6 days per staff per year §          Management time – 1 day of management time per month §          Staff time devoted to record keeping and reporting (2 FTE X 2 days per month) §          The assessment of costs accruing to DP are informed by interviews with DP || §          Number of successful minor terrorist attacks per year =  94 §          Number of lives lost per year in minor terrorist attacks =  40 §          Number of persons injured in a minor terrorist attack = 359 §          Cost to Economy of a minor attack = € 162,896 §          Likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 90% §          Loss of Lives in a major attack = 100 §          Number of persons injured in a major terrorist attack = 500 §          Economic impact of a major attack = € 500 million to € 1 billion 
 A.2 – Status quo+ or Baseline || Initial set up costs: §          Development of EU legislative instrument (EU budget) §          Relocation of 4 existing Europol analysts to UST (EU budget) §          Relocation of 14 Member State analysts to UST (national budgets) – based on stakeholder consultations, it is clear that not all EU Member States face the same level of risk of terrorism. Member States that face a low risk of terrorism would not choose to relocate analysts at UST. Besides, there is likely to be a capacity constraint in terms of the number of EU analysts that can be accommodated at the UST §          Initial staff training (national budgets) Running costs §          Salary costs of analysts (EU + national budget) §          Operational expenditure of analysts (national budget) §          Cost of independent overseer appointed by the EU (EU budget) §          Cost of issuing regular updates and guidance to intelligence staff (national budget) Administrative costs: §          Cost of monitoring and reporting by the Commission to the Council and the Parliament (EU budget) Cost to DP: Same as above (Option A.1)   || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 0% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 10% 
 A.3 – Terminate EU-US TFTP Agreement || Not applicable || Increase in terrorist activity 
 B.1 – Centralised  EU TFTS || The cost of setting-up and running the EU TFTS accrue to the EU budget. NB: The costs have been estimated on a conservative basis – actual costs might be lower depending on the extent to which existing Europol infrastructure and hardware could be used for the TFTS e.g. the costs include  T1 lines. These might not accrue if Europol’s Siena lines are deemed fit for purpose for the TFTS. Cost to DP: §          Same as Option A.1. Additionally,  there would be one-off expenditure associated with §          Familiarisation with EU legislative framework and technical requirements §          Adapting existing systems and processes to comply with EU requirements §          Developing a data extraction system §          Initial staff training §          Security clearance of staff || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 0% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 0% 
 B.2 – Decentralised System || Cost to EU budget §          The cost to EU budget would be those associated with the development of an EU legislative instrument Cost to national budgets §          The cost of developing and running the system would accrue national budgets. For reasons described earlier, it is assumed that 14 out of 27 Member States will choose to set up a national TFTS Cost to DP: §          the DP would have to incur an additional expenditure to familiarise with the EU/national legislation and systems (€75,000 to €100,000 X 14) §          It would cost the DP €200,000 to €400,000 to adapt/ set-up systems and processes to comply with the new requirements The following costs would be the same as B.1: §          Developing a data extraction system §          Initial staff training §          Security clearance of staff §          Running and administrative costs || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 0% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 10% 
 B.3.1 - EU TFTS coordination and analytical service || Costs are same as B.1 except that (a) Member States can now request the central EU Agency to conduct searches on their behalf Member States could opt to either request searches to be run on their behalf by the central unit (having to substantiate their requests for searches or undertake their own searches, through designated national TFTS analysts which would be based in the same location as the EU TFTS unit; (b) the central EU Agency will employ a slightly higher number of analysts as compared to B.1.   The initial set-up costs of the system would be lower than B.1: 10% of the cost of software development and project management as it is assumed that UST would share know-how and expertise.   The running costs are slightly lower as overheads and operational expenditure is slightly lower (lower number of Member States analysts placed at Europol) || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 20% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 35% 
 B.3.2 – EU TFTS extraction service || Costs are same as B1 except that (a) EU Central Unit extracts search results for Member States and analyses only for EU level bodies and third countries; (b) The Member States would be the only authorities to undertake the analysis of the searches || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 15% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 30% 
 B.3.3 - Financial Intelligence Unit coordination service || The main difference in costs vis-a-vis B.1 relates to the creation of a new ad hoc body at EU level (FIU Platform) || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 10% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 25% 
 B.4.1 - Data retention regime || Under this policy option, the DP would be required to retain the data on its server for a certain period. The option would eliminate the need to make requests for “raw” data and the related verification process. Searches would be run by DP on request of UST, Europol and/or MS. Monitoring compliance with safeguards and controls would be centralised, possibly involving oversight by external stakeholders.   The cost of setting up and running the system at an EU level would be lower as: §          There would be no capital expenditure involved with the creation/ upgradation of a facility to house the system §          No costs associated with preparation or verification of request for data §          Lower number of FTE involved in running the system (18)    The DP would be faced with higher staff costs. It is assumed that 4 staff would be recruited by the DP to run searches. || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 10% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 25% 
 B.4.2 - Data retention regime and extraction mechanism || Costs are same as B4.1 except that 4 Europol analysts and 14 national analysts would be located on DP's premises or in a facility nearby || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 10% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 25% 
 C.1 - Terrorism only || Same as B.3.1 || §          Same as B.3.1 
 C.2  - Terrorism + serious organised crime || Same as B.3.1 except that there might be marginal additional costs associated with greater volumes of data being handled §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 30% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 45% NB: includes the benefits of the preferred option concerning the structure, i.e. B.3.1 
 D.1 - One Designated Provider || Same as B.3.1 || §          Same as B.3.1 
 D.2-  Multiple Designated Providers || The cost to EU budget and national budgets are the same as B3.1.   All costs accruing to DPs have been multiplied by 44 considering that the system would work with multiple Designated Providers and hence access, search and analyse FIN and other types of financial messages / other type of transaction data. The system will cover all ACH (42); SWIFT; and, PayPal   || §          Reduction in scale of minor terrorist activity = 30% §          Reduction in likelihood of a major terrorist attack = 45% NB: includes the benefits of the preferred option concerning the structure, i.e. B.3.1 

IX.2 Annex 2 Table of costs
 
 Incremental Costs of different Policy Options vis a vis Baseline Scenario ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   || EU Budget || MS Budget || Designated Provider(s) 
 Option || Cost Category || Min || Max || Min || Max || Min || Max 
 Option A.1 (Baseline Scenario) || Initial Set-up Costs || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Running Costs (annual) || 232,798 || 295,654 ||   ||   || 651,293 || 703,692 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 40,370 || 70,330 ||   ||   || 15,354 || 15,354 
 Option A.2 || Initial Set-up Costs || 330,000 || 460,000 || 224,000 || 308,000 || 0 || 0 
 Running Costs (annual) || 407,397 || 344,541 || 2,208,085 || 2,415,855 || 0 || 0 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Option B.1 || Initial Set-up Costs || 8,124,591 || 10,437,804 || 0 || 0 || 455,800 || 708,000 
 Running Costs (annual) || 6,414,009 || 6,760,153 || 0 || 0 || 35,186 || 0 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 5,820 || 8,730 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Option B.2 || Initial Set-up Costs || 250,000 || 300,000 || 101,684,800 || 133,012,600 || 1,356,800 || 2,009,000 
 Running Costs (annual) || -232,798 || -295,654 || 62,990,812 || 68,086,812 || 46,701 || 11,515 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || -40,370 || -70,330 || 62,990,812 || 68,086,812 || 61,415 || 61,415 
 Option B.3(i) || Initial Set-up Costs || 5,335,405 || 6,517,782 || 354,000 || 503,000 || 455,800 || 708,000 
 Running Costs (annual) || 6,114,394 || 6,459,538 || 1,960,837 || 2,168,607 || 35,186 || 0 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 5,820 || 8,730 || 70,280 || 70,280 || 0 || 0 
 Option B.3(ii) || Initial Set-up Costs || 5,335,405 || 6,517,782 || 354,000 || 503,000 || 455,800 || 708,000 
 Running Costs (annual) || 4,752,471 || 5,097,615 || 10,430,985 || 10,638,755 || 35,186 || 0 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 5,820 || 8,730 || 70,280 || 70,280 || 0 || 0 
 Option B.3(iii) || Initial Set-up Costs || 5,585,405 || 6,817,782 || 354,000 || 503,000 || 5,585,405 || 6,817,782 
 Running Costs (annual) || 5,436,829 || 5,781,973 || 21,894,728 || 22,232,498 || 5,018,333 || 5,373,934 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 5,820 || 8,730 || 70,280 || 70,280 || 30,836 || 63,706 
 Option B.4(i) || Initial Set-up Costs || 738,399 || 1,256,920 || 284,000 || 433,000 || 759,800 || 913,000 
 Running Costs (annual) || 1,632,095 || 1,578,840 || 1,680,837 || 1,748,607 || 955,086 || 909,724 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 5,820 || 8,730 || 70,280 || 70,280 || 61,415 || 61,415 
 Option B.4(ii) || Initial Set-up Costs || 2,209,869 || 2,947,246 || 354,000 || 503,000 || 755,000 || 907,000 
 Running Costs (annual) || 4,466,026 || 4,816,370 || 1,960,837 || 2,168,607 || 91,441 || 42,241 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 5,820 || 8,730 || 70,280 || 70,280 || 61,415 || 61,415 
 Option D.2 || Initial Set-up Costs || 5,357,541 || 6,552,054 || 354,000 || 6,552,054 || 19,984,800 || 31,064,000 
 Running Costs (annual) || 6,114,394 || 6,459,538 || 1,960,837 || 6,755,192 || 28,005,610 || 30,258,768 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) || 5,820 || 8,730 || 70,280 || 79,060 || 1,335,771 || 1,335,771 
 Overview of Costs of different Policy Options ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   || EU Budget || MS Budget || Designated Provider(s) 
 Option || Cost Category || Min || Max || Min || Max || Min || Max 
 Option A.1 (Baseline Scenario) || Initial Set-up Costs ||                          -   ||                          -   ||                          -   ||                          -   ||                          -   ||                          -   
 Running Costs (annual) ||              232,798 ||              295,654 ||   ||   ||              651,293 ||              703,692 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 40,370 ||                 70,330 ||   ||   ||                 15,354 ||                 15,354 
 Option A.2 || Initial Set-up Costs ||              330,000 ||              460,000 ||              224,000 ||              308,000 ||                          -   ||                          -   
 Running Costs (annual) ||              640,195 ||              640,195 ||           2,208,085 ||           2,415,855 ||              651,293 ||              703,692 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 40,370 ||                 70,330 ||                          -   ||                          -   ||                 15,354 ||                 15,354 
 Option B.1 || Initial Set-up Costs ||           8,124,591 ||         10,437,804 ||                          -   ||                          -   ||              455,800 ||              708,000 
 Running Costs (annual) ||           6,646,807 ||           7,055,807 ||                          -   ||                          -   ||              686,479 ||              703,692 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 46,190 ||                 79,060 ||                          -   ||                          -   ||                 15,354 ||                 15,354 
 Option B.2 || Initial Set-up Costs ||              250,000 ||              300,000 ||      101,684,800 ||      133,012,600 ||           1,356,800 ||           2,009,000 
 Running Costs (annual) ||                          -   ||                          -   ||         62,990,812 ||         68,086,812 ||              697,994 ||              715,208 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                          -   ||                          -   ||         62,990,812 ||         68,086,812 ||                 76,768 ||                 76,768 
 Option B.3(i) || Initial Set-up Costs ||           5,335,405 ||           6,517,782 ||              354,000 ||              503,000 ||              455,800 ||              708,000 
 Running Costs (annual) ||           6,347,192 ||           6,755,192 ||           1,960,837 ||           2,168,607 ||              686,479 ||              703,692 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 46,190 ||                 79,060 ||                 70,280 ||                 70,280 ||                 15,354 ||                 15,354 
 Option B.3(ii) || Initial Set-up Costs ||           5,335,405 ||           6,517,782 ||              354,000 ||              503,000 ||              455,800 ||              708,000 
 Running Costs (annual) ||           4,985,269 ||           5,393,269 ||         10,430,985 ||         10,638,755 ||              686,479 ||              703,692 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 46,190 ||                 79,060 ||                 70,280 ||                 70,280 ||                 15,354 ||                 15,354 
 Option B.3(iii) || Initial Set-up Costs ||           5,585,405 ||           6,817,782 ||              354,000 ||              503,000 ||           5,585,405 ||           6,817,782 
 Running Costs (annual) ||           5,669,627 ||           6,077,627 ||         21,894,728 ||         22,232,498 ||           5,669,627 ||           6,077,627 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 46,190 ||                 79,060 ||                 70,280 ||                 70,280 ||                 46,190 ||                 79,060 
 Option B.4(i) || Initial Set-up Costs ||              738,399 ||           1,256,920 ||              284,000 ||              433,000 ||              759,800 ||              913,000 
 Running Costs (annual) ||           1,864,893 ||           1,874,493 ||           1,680,837 ||           1,748,607 ||           1,606,379 ||           1,613,416 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 46,190 ||                 79,060 ||                 70,280 ||                 70,280 ||                 76,768 ||                 76,768 
 Option B.4(ii) || Initial Set-up Costs ||           2,209,869 ||           2,947,246 ||              354,000 ||              503,000 ||              755,000 ||              907,000 
 Running Costs (annual) ||           4,698,824 ||           5,112,024 ||           1,960,837 ||           2,168,607 ||              742,735 ||              745,933 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 46,190 ||                 79,060 ||                 70,280 ||                 70,280 ||                 76,768 ||                 76,768 
 Option D.2 || Initial Set-up Costs ||           5,357,541 ||           6,552,054 ||              354,000 ||           6,552,054 ||         19,984,800 ||         31,064,000 
 Running Costs (annual) ||           6,347,192 ||           6,755,192 ||           1,960,837 ||           6,755,192 ||         28,656,903 ||         30,962,460 
 Adminstrative Costs (annual) ||                 46,190 ||                 79,060 ||                 70,280 ||                 79,060 ||           1,351,124 ||           1,351,124 
 IT Costs ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Labour || Purchase of equipment || Travel || Total 
 Days || Daily Rate || Cost || Units || Per Unit Cost- min || Per Unit Cost- max || Cost - min || Cost - max || Units || Per Unit Cost || Cost || MIN || MAX 
 Develop Functional Specifications || 30 || € 2,500 || € 75,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   || € 0 || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 80,000 || € 150,000 
 Develop System Architecture || 30 || € 2,500 || € 75,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   || € 0 || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 80,000 || € 150,000 
 Develop Preliminary Design Specification || 30 || € 2,500 || € 75,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   || € 0 || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 80,000 || € 150,000 
 Develop Detailed Design Specifications || 60 || € 2,500 || € 150,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   || € 0 || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 155,000 || € 300,000 
 Develop Acceptance Test Plan || 20 || € 2,500 || € 50,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   || € 0 || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 55,000 || € 150,000 
 Development of full technical specification || 170 ||   || € 425,000 || 0 ||   ||   ||   || € 0 || 25 ||   || € 25,000 || € 450,000 || € 900,000 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Installation of dedicated/ secure data lines (T1 variant) || 1 || € 2,500 || € 2,500 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 || € 1,000 || € 1,000 || € 3,500 || € 3,500 
 Main Database Server || 1 || € 2,500 || € 2,500 || 1 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || 1 || € 1,000 || € 1,000 || € 43,500 || € 53,500 
 Application Server || 1 || € 2,500 || € 2,500 || 1 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || € 42,500 || € 52,500 
 On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) Server || 1 || € 2,500 || € 2,500 || 1 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || € 42,500 || € 52,500 
 Network Server || 1 || € 2,500 || € 2,500 || 1 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || € 42,500 || € 52,500 
 Backup and Restore (BAR) || 1 || € 2,500 || € 2,500 || 1 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || € 40,000 || € 50,000 || 1 || € 1,000 || € 1,000 || € 43,500 || € 53,500 
 SAN Device || 1 || € 2,500 || € 2,500 || 1 || € 100,000 || € 25,000 || € 100,000 || € 25,000 || 1 || € 1,000 || € 1,000 || € 103,500 || € 28,500 
 Analysts terminal || 1 || € 2,500 || € 2,500 || 10 || € 1,000 || € 2,000 || € 10,000 || € 20,000 || 1 || € 1,000 || € 1,000 || € 13,500 || € 23,500 
 Overseer terminal || 2 || € 1,000 || € 2,000 || € 2,000 || € 4,000 || € 2,000 || € 4,000 
 Procurement and installation of hardware || 8 ||   || € 20,000 || 18 ||   ||   || € 312,000 || € 299,000 || 5 ||   || € 5,000 || € 337,000 || € 324,000 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Purchase of software and licences: ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Firewall ||   ||   ||   || 1 || € 20,000 || € 100,000 || € 20,000 || € 100,000 ||   ||   ||   || € 20,000 || € 100,000 
 Oracle ||   ||   ||   || 1 || € 500,000 || € 750,000 || € 500,000 || € 750,000 ||   ||   ||   || € 500,000 || € 750,000 
 ETL Software (data extraction software) ||   ||   ||   || 1 || € 350,000 || € 500,000 || € 350,000 || € 500,000 ||   ||   ||   || € 350,000 || € 500,000 
 OLAP Reporting Tool ||   ||   ||   || 1 || € 350,000 || € 500,000 || € 350,000 || € 500,000 ||   ||   ||   || € 350,000 || € 500,000 
 Other software ||   ||   ||   || 1 || € 500,000 || € 750,000 || € 500,000 || € 750,000 ||   ||   ||   || € 500,000 || € 750,000 
 Develop bespoke Software - entity extraction tool ||   ||   ||   || 1 || € 750,000 || € 1,000,000 || € 750,000 || € 1,000,000 ||   ||   ||   || € 750,000 || € 1,000,000 
 Perform Acceptance Test || 20 || € 2,500 || € 50,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 ||   || € 0 || € 50,000 || € 50,000 
 Perform Post Project Review || 20 || € 2,500 || € 50,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0 ||   || € 0 || € 50,000 || € 50,000 
 Software development || 40 ||   || € 100,000 || 6 ||   ||   || € 2,470,000 || € 3,600,000 || 0 ||   || € 0 || € 2,570,000 || € 3,700,000 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Customer Progress Meetings/Reports || 20 || € 2,500 || € 50,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 55,000 || € 55,000 
 Internal Status Meetings/Reports || 20 || € 2,500 || € 50,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 55,000 || € 55,000 
 Third-Party Vendor Interface || 15 || € 2,500 || € 37,500 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 42,500 || € 42,500 
 Configuration Management || 15 || € 2,500 || € 37,500 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 42,500 || € 42,500 
 Quality Assurance || 10 || € 2,500 || € 25,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 5 || € 1,000 || € 5,000 || € 30,000 || € 30,000 
 Project Management: || 80 ||   || € 200,000 || 0 ||   ||   ||   || € 0 || 25 ||   || € 25,000 || € 225,000 || € 225,000 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Contingency (10%) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || € 313,200 || € 424,900 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Online Analytical Processing, a category of software tools that provides analysis of data stored in a database. OLAP tools enable users to analyze different dimensions of multidimensional data. For example, it provides time series and trend analysis views. OLAP often is used in data mining.  The chief component of OLAP is the OLAP server, which sits between a client and a database management systems (DBMS). The OLAP server understands how data is organized in the database and has special functions for analyzing the data. There are OLAP servers available for nearly all the major database systems.   
HR Costs 
 EU Budget || Assumption || Average Staff Costs (Daily) || Average Staff Costs (annual) || A2 || B1 || B3.1 || B3.2 || B3.3 || B.4.1 || B.4.2 
 Function/ Role || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost 
 Preparation of requests for raw data and coordination with DPs || AD-10 || € 582 || € 128,039 ||   ||   || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Supervision of all operations || AD-14 || € 954 || € 209,827 ||   ||   || 1 || € 209,827 || 1 || € 209,827 || 1 || € 209,827 || 1 || € 209,827 || 1 || € 209,827 || 1 || € 128,039 
 Programme Management Team || AD-14 || € 954 || € 209,827 ||   ||   || 3 || € 629,481 || 2 || € 419,654 || 2 || € 419,654 || 3 || € 629,481 ||   ||   || 2 || € 419,654 
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) || AD-7 || € 402 || € 88,400 ||   ||   || 4 || € 353,600 || 4 || € 353,600 || 4 || € 353,600 || 4 || € 353,600 ||   ||   || 4 || € 839,308 
 External communication || AD-7 || € 402 || € 88,400 ||   ||   || 1 || € 88,400 || 1 || € 88,400 || 1 || € 88,400 || 1 || € 88,400 || 1 || € 88,400 || 1 || € 88,400 
 Security agents || Average Agent cost of EUR 57,600 (source: IA IT Agency) || € 262 || € 57,600 ||   ||   || 2 || € 115,200 || 3 || € 172,800 || 3 || € 172,800 || 2 || € 115,200 ||   ||   ||   || € 0 
 Independent Overseer || AD-10 || € 582 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 128,039 || 1 || € 57,600 
 External Auditors || AD-10 || € 582 || € 128,039 ||   ||   || 2 || € 256,078 || 2 || € 256,078 || 2 || € 256,078 || 2 || € 256,078 || 2 || € 256,078 || 2 || € 256,078 
 TFTS Analysts || AD-10 || € 582 || € 128,039 || 4 || € 512,156 || 10 || € 1,280,389 || 8 || € 1,024,311 || 4 || € 512,156 ||   || € 0 || 4 || € 512,156 || 4 || € 512,156 
 Legal Officer || AD-8 || € 455 || € 100,019 ||   ||   || 1 || € 100,019 || 1 || € 100,019 || 1 || € 100,019 || 1 || € 100,019 || 1 || € 100,019 || 1 || € 128,039 
 Data Protection Officer || AD-8 || € 455 || € 100,019 ||   ||   || 2 || € 200,038 || 2 || € 200,038 || 1 || € 100,019 || 2 || € 200,038 || 1 || € 100,019 || 1 || € 100,019 
 Verification and authorisation of requests || AD-12 || € 745 || € 163,909 ||   ||   || 2 || € 327,817 || 2 || € 327,817 || 1 || € 163,909 || 2 || € 327,817 ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   || 5 || € 640,195 || 30 || € 3,816,927 || 28 || € 3,408,622 || 22 || € 2,632,539 || 20 || € 2,536,538 || 11 || € 1,394,537 || 17 || € 2,529,292 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 National Budget || Assumption || Average Staff Costs (Daily) || Average Staff Costs (annual) || A2 || B1 || B3.1 || B3.2 || B3.3 || D1 || D2 
 Function/ Role || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost 
 Preparation of requests for raw data and coordination with DPs || AD-10 || € 502 || € 110,378 ||   ||   || 1 || € 110,378 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Supervision of all operations || AD-14 || € 822 || € 180,885 ||   ||   || 1 || € 180,885 || 0 || € 0 || 14 || € 2,532,394 || 27 || € 4,883,902 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Programme Management Team || AD-14 || € 822 || € 180,885 ||   ||   || 3 || € 542,656 || 0 || € 0 || 14 || € 2,532,394 || 27 || € 4,883,902 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) || AD-7 || € 346 || € 76,207 ||   ||   || 4 || € 304,828 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 External communication || AD-7 || € 346 || € 76,207 ||   ||   || 1 || € 76,207 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Security agents || Average Agent cost of EUR 57,600 (source: IA IT Agency) || € 262 || € 57,600 ||   ||   || 2 || € 115,200 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Independent Overseer || AD-10 || € 502 || € 110,378 ||   ||   || 1 || € 110,378 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 External Auditors || AD-10 || € 502 || € 110,378 ||   ||   || 2 || € 220,757 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 || 0 || € 0 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 TFTS Analysts || AD-10 || € 502 || € 110,378 ||   ||   || 10 || € 1,103,784 || 14 || € 1,545,297 || 14 || € 1,545,297 || 27 || € 2,980,216 || 14 || € 1,545,297 || 14 || € 1,545,297 
 Legal Officer || AD-8 || € 392 || € 86,223 ||   ||   || 1 || € 86,223 || 0 || € 0 || 14 || € 1,207,125 || 27 || € 2,328,027 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Data Protection Officer || AD-8 || € 392 || € 86,223 ||   ||   || 2 || € 172,446 || 0 || € 0 || 14 || € 1,207,125 || 27 || € 2,328,027 ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Verification and authorisation of requests || AD-12 || € 642 || € 141,300 ||   ||   || 2 || € 282,601 || 0 || € 0 || 14 || € 1,978,206 || 27 || € 3,815,112 ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   || 0 || € 0 || 30 || € 3,306,344 || 14 || € 1,545,297 || 84 || € 11,002,542 || 162 || € 21,219,188 || 14 || € 1,545,297 || 14 || € 1,545,297 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Designated Provider ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Function/ Role || Assumption || Average Staff Costs (Daily) || Average Staff Costs (annual) || No. of FTE || Cost ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || No. of FTE || Cost || No. of FTE || Cost 
 Overseers || see below || € 640 || € 140,742 || 3 || € 422,226 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 3 || € 422,226 || 3 || € 422,226 
 Staff involved in preparing and transmitting data || see below || € 640 || € 140,742 || 0.25 || € 35,186 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 1 || € 140,742 || 1 || € 140,742 
 Legal advisor + training || see below || € 640 || € 140,742 || 0.25 || € 35,186 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0.5 || € 70,371 || 0.5 || € 70,371 
 External auditor || see below || € 640 || € 140,742 || 0.25 || € 35,186 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 0.5 || € 70,371 || 0.5 || € 70,371 
 Staff involved in conducting searches || see below || € 640 || € 140,742 || 0 || € 0 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 6 || € 844,453 || 0 || € 0 
   ||   ||   ||   || 3.75 || € 527,783 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   || 11 || € 1,548,163 || 5 || € 703,711 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 SWIFT Staff Costs || 2010 || 2009 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Payroll and related charges ||       254,321,000 ||      270,206,000 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 No. of employees ||                    1,807 ||                   1,991 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Average staff costs - Annual ||               140,742 ||              135,714 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Average Staff Costs - Daily Rate ||                       640 ||                      617 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 http://www.swift.com/about_swift/publications/annual_reports/annual_review_2010/SWIFT_AR2010_financial_statements.pdf ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 http://www.swift.com/about_swift/publications/annual_reports/annual_review_2010/SWIFT_AR2010.pdf ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 European Commission: Monthly Basic Salary (2010) and Adjustments ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Seniority Step ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Grade || I || II || III || IV || V || Monthly -Average || Annual salary || + Expat Allowance || 2011 prices || 2012 prices || Daily rate ||   || MS Salary (minus expat allowance) || Daily rate 
 16 ||        16,919 ||        17,630 ||        18,371 ||   ||   ||        17,640 ||        211,680 ||        245,548 ||      252,915 ||      260,502 ||          1,184 ||   ||      224,571 ||          1,021 
 15 ||        19,534 ||        15,582 ||        16,237 ||        16,688 ||        16,919 ||        16,992 ||        203,904 ||        236,528 ||      243,624 ||      250,933 ||          1,141 ||   ||      216,321 ||             983 
 14 ||        13,216 ||        13,772 ||        14,351 ||        14,750 ||        14,954 ||        14,208 ||        170,502 ||        197,782 ||      203,715 ||      209,827 ||             954 ||   ||      180,885 ||             822 
 13 ||        11,681 ||        12,172 ||        12,684 ||        13,036 ||        13,216 ||        12,558 ||        150,695 ||        174,806 ||      180,050 ||      185,452 ||             843 ||   ||      159,872 ||             727 
 12 ||        10,324 ||        10,758 ||        11,210 ||        11,522 ||        11,681 ||        11,099 ||        133,189 ||        154,499 ||      159,134 ||      163,909 ||             745 ||   ||      141,300 ||             642 
 11 ||          9,125 ||          9,508 ||          9,908 ||        10,184 ||        10,324 ||          9,810 ||        117,717 ||        136,552 ||      140,648 ||      144,868 ||             658 ||   ||      124,886 ||             568 
 10 ||          8,065 ||          8,404 ||          8,757 ||          9,001 ||          9,125 ||          8,670 ||        104,042 ||        120,689 ||      124,310 ||      128,039 ||             582 ||   ||      110,378 ||             502 
 9 ||          7,128 ||          7,428 ||          7,740 ||          7,955 ||          8,065 ||          7,663 ||          91,956 ||        106,669 ||      109,869 ||      113,165 ||             514 ||   ||        97,556 ||             443 
 8 ||          6,300 ||          6,565 ||          6,841 ||          7,031 ||          7,128 ||          6,773 ||          81,274 ||          94,277 ||        97,106 ||      100,019 ||             455 ||   ||        86,223 ||             392 
 7 ||          5,568 ||          5,802 ||          6,046 ||          6,214 ||          6,300 ||          5,986 ||          71,832 ||          83,326 ||        85,825 ||        88,400 ||             402 ||   ||        76,207 ||             346 
 6 ||          4,921 ||          5,128 ||          5,344 ||          5,492 ||          5,568 ||          5,291 ||          63,488 ||          73,646 ||        75,855 ||        78,131 ||             355 ||   ||        67,354 ||             306 
 5 ||          4,350 ||          4,532 ||          4,723 ||          4,854 ||          4,921 ||          4,676 ||          56,113 ||          65,091 ||        67,043 ||        69,055 ||             314 ||   ||        59,530 ||             271 
 4 ||          3,844 ||          4,006 ||          4,174 ||          4,290 ||          4,350 ||          4,133 ||          49,594 ||          57,529 ||        59,255 ||        61,033 ||             277 ||   ||        52,614 ||             239 
 3 ||          3,398 ||          3,541 ||          3,689 ||          3,792 ||          3,844 ||          3,653 ||          43,833 ||          50,846 ||        52,372 ||        53,943 ||             245 ||   ||        46,502 ||             211 
 2 ||          3,003 ||          3,129 ||          3,261 ||          3,351 ||          3,398 ||          3,228 ||          38,741 ||          44,940 ||        46,288 ||        47,676 ||             217 ||   ||        41,100 ||             187 
 1 ||          2,654 ||          2,766 ||          2,882 ||          2,962 ||          3,003 ||          2,853 ||          34,241 ||          39,719 ||        40,911 ||        42,138 ||             192 ||   ||        36,326 ||             165 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Annual Inflation || 3% ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/docs/salary_officials_en.pdf ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Notes: ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Each grade is broken up into five seniority steps . Basic salaries are adjusted annually in line with inflation and purchasing power in the EU countries ||   ||   ||   
 Staff who have left home country to come and work for the European Commission, are entitled to an expatriation allowance equivalent to 16% of  basic salary. ||   ||   
 Officials accumulate 1.9% pension rights every year ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 A.1 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Note: This policy option involves no further/ new action being taken by the EU. Under this option, the present arrangements as per the US-EU TFTP Agreement would continue 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   || Min || Max ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item ||  Per Unit Costs || No. of  Units || No. of days per year || Cost ||  Per Unit Costs || No. of  Units || No. of days per year || Cost || Explanatory Comments 
 EU Budget || Running costs || Verfication and authorisation of UST requests || Europol analysts' time (AD-10) ||         582.00 || 3 || 48 ||        83,807 ||             582 || 3 || 72 ||        125,711 || 2 to 3 days per month X 3 Analysts 
 Initiating/ coordinating requests for searches / process 'leads' through pontaneous provision of information || Europol analysts' time (AD-10) ||         582.00 || 3 || 12 ||        20,952 ||             582 || 3 || 24 ||          41,904 || 1 to 2 days per month X 3 Analysts 
 Independent EU Overseer || Salary costs ||         582.00 || 1 || 220 ||      128,039 ||             582 || 1 || 220 ||        128,039 || 1 FTE (AD10 equivalent) 
 sub-total ||   ||   ||   ||      232,798 ||   ||   ||   ||        295,654 ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review of EU-TFTS || Time spent on review ||         582.00 || 5 || 5 ||        14,550 ||             582 || 5 || 10 ||          29,100 || 5 to 10 days X 5 reviewers 
 Reimbursable expenses ||         500.00 || 5 || 5 ||        12,500 ||             500 || 5 || 10 ||          25,000 || 5 to 10 days X EUR 500 per day 
 Travel ||     1,500.00 || 5 ||   ||          7,500 ||          1,500 || 5 ||   ||            7,500 || EUR 1,500 per person 
 Monitoring and reporting by the European Commission || Staff time ||         582.00 || 1 || 10 ||          5,820 ||             582 || 1 || 15 ||            8,730 || 10 to 15 days X 1 EC staff (AD10) 
 sub-total ||   ||   ||   ||        40,370 ||   ||   ||   ||          70,330 ||   
 DP || Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||              640 || 3.75 || 220 ||      527,783 ||             640 || 3.75 || 220 ||        527,783 || See HR costs 
 Operational costs || Technical updates (software and hardware) ||   ||   ||   ||      100,000 ||   ||   ||   ||        150,000 || Guesstimate 
 Staff training ||              640 || 3.75 || 5 ||        11,995 ||             640 || 3.75 || 6 ||          14,394 || 6 FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs (EUR 674). Daily wage = annual staff costs (EUR 148 298) divided by 220 working days. 
 Overheads || Management costs ||              960 || 1 || 12 ||        11,515 ||             960 || 1 || 12 ||          11,515 || 1 day of management time per month: 12 days per year X daily wage (EUR 670 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||   ||   ||   ||      651,293 ||   ||   ||   ||        703,692 ||   
 Administrative Costs || Record keeping || Record keeping ||              640 || 2 || 12 ||        15,354 ||             640 || 2 || 12 ||          15,354 || 2 staff X 2 days per month X Daily wages 
 sub-total ||   ||   ||   ||        15,354 ||   ||   ||   ||          15,354 ||   
 A.2 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Note: Costs essential relate to Europol relocating its analysts to UST and 14 Member States locating analysts to UST ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   || Range of Costs (EUR) ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Relocation of EU Analysts || Relocation of Analysts to UST ||                     80,000 ||                   160,000 ||   || EUR 20,000 to EUR 40,000 X 4 analyst 
 sub-total ||                   330,000 ||                   460,000 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                   512,156 ||                   512,156 ||   || 4 FTE analysts 
   || Independent EU overseer ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR Costs 
 sub-total ||                   640,195 ||                   640,195 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs ||   || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                     34,550 ||                     61,600 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
   || EC monitoring and reporting ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     40,370 ||                     70,330 ||   ||   
 MS || Initial Set-up Costs || HR costs || Initial expenditure for relocation of national analysts at EU unit ||                   210,000 ||                   280,000 ||   || EUR 15,000 to 20,000 per Member State X 14 Member States 
   || Initial staff training ||                     14,000 ||                     28,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per analyst 
 sub-total ||                   224,000 ||                   308,000 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) ||  HR costs || Staff costs ||                1,792,545 ||                1,792,545 ||   || No. of TFTS analysts (14) X EUR 128,039 
  Operational expenditure || Operational expenditure e.g. T&S, travel ||                   280,000 ||                   420,000 ||   || No. of TFTS Analysts X EUR 20,000 to 30,000 
   || Issuing regular guidance and updates ||                   135,540 ||                   203,310 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10) X 27 Member States 
 sub-total ||                2,208,085 ||                2,415,855 ||   ||   
 DP || Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                   527,783 ||                   527,783 ||   || See HR costs 
 Operational costs || Technical updates (software and hardware) ||                   100,000 ||                   150,000 ||   ||   
 Staff training ||                     11,995 ||                     14,394 ||   || 3.75 FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                     11,515 ||                     11,515 ||   || 1 day of management time per month: 12 days per year X daily wage (EUR 670 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||                   651,293 ||                   703,692 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   || 2 staff X 2 days per month X Daily wages 
 sub-total ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   ||   
 B1 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   || Range of Costs (EUR) ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Development of full technical specification || Procurement of external IT consultancy ||                   450,000 ||                   900,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Secure facility to house the TFTS || option a - Capital expenditure for new facility ||                3,150,000 ||                3,600,000 ||   || Based on rough average cost of EUR 7000 to EUR 8000 per 1m2 for constructing a central facility, a back-up facility and office space, which are serviced and equipped (source: based on figures for construction of a UK data centre, 15 August 2007 www.datacenterjournal.com which were used in IA of IT Agency). The total floor space required for the TFTP is assumed to be 100m2 plus additional 350 m2 for accommodating 7 additional analysts (source: space requirements are based on a guesstimate) 
 option b - Upgradation of existing facility ||                   787,500 ||                   900,000 ||   || Assumed to be 1/4th cost of new build 
 Development of IT infrastructure || Hardware procurement and installation ||                   337,000 ||                   324,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Software development ||                2,570,000 ||                3,700,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Project management ||                   225,000 ||                   225,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Contingency (10%) ||                   313,200 ||                   424,900 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Other costs || Development of training and certification ||                     19,755 ||                     29,632 ||   || 3 AD11 staff X 10 to 15 days each 
   ||   || Initial training of analysts ||                        7,136 ||                     14,272 ||   || 10 analysts X 1 to 2 days X EUR 582 plus 2  trainers X 1 to 2 days X 658 
   ||   || Recruitment costs ||                     15,000 ||                     20,000 ||   || Launching a call for candidates, selection process etc. Figure based on a guesstimate 
 sub-total ||                8,124,591 ||             10,437,804 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || Human Resources || Preparation of requests for data and coordination with DPs ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Supervision of all operations ||                   209,827 ||                   209,827 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Programme Management Team ||                   629,481 ||                   629,481 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) ||                   353,600 ||                   353,600 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External communication ||                     88,400 ||                     88,400 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Security agents ||                   115,200 ||                   115,200 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Independent Overseer ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External Auditors ||                   256,078 ||                   256,078 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 TFTS Analysts ||                1,280,389 ||                1,280,389 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Legal Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Data Protection Officer ||                   200,038 ||                   200,038 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Verification and validation of requests ||                   327,817 ||                   327,817 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Operating costs of the system || Hardware maintenance ||                   200,000 ||                   250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 Vendor support ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   || Guesstimate 
 Software maintenance, updates & licenses ||                1,000,000 ||                1,250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 T1 data lines ||                        6,000 ||                     12,000 ||   || 500 to 1000 per month 
 Other costs || Security clearance of new staff ||                     12,000 ||                     15,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; half the persons require clearance on an annual basis 
 Overheads and other admin expenditure ||                   448,890 ||                   448,890 ||   || No. of FTE X EUR 14,963 (Europol's overheads per FTE) 
 Operational expenditure ||                1,062,990 ||                1,062,990 ||   || No. of FTE X EUR 35,433 (Europol's operational expenditure per FTE) 
 sub-total ||                6,646,807 ||                7,055,807 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                     34,550 ||                     61,600 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
 Information Obligations || Preparation of reports by centralised agency ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 EC monitoring and reporting ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     46,190 ||                     79,060 ||   ||   
 DP || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Familiarising with the new legislation and planning how to comply ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Internal organisation || Adapting/setting up systems and processes to comply with the legislation ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 IT costs || Data extraction system ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 HR costs || Security clearance of staff ||                        4,800 ||                        6,000 ||   || 6 X EUR 800 to 1000  per person; 
   || Initial staff training ||                        1,000 ||                        2,000 ||   ||   
 sub-total ||                   455,800 ||                   708,000 ||   ||   
 Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                   562,968 ||                   527,783 ||   || See HR costs 
 Operational costs || Technical updates (software and hardware) ||                   100,000 ||                   150,000 ||   ||   
 Staff training ||                     11,995 ||                     14,394 ||   || 3.75 FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                     11,515 ||                     11,515 ||   || 1 day of management time per month: 12 days per year X daily wage  (EUR 670 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||                   686,479 ||                   703,692 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   || 2 staff X 2 days per month X Daily wages 
 sub-total ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   ||   
 B2 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Note: This option is based on the assumption that 14 Member State will develop a national system. As such most costs have been multiplied by 14 
   ||   ||   ||   || Range of Costs (EUR) ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 MS || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of national legislative instrument || Development of legal framework for national TFTS ||                2,800,000 ||                4,200,000 ||   || 200,000 to 300,000 per Member State 
 Development of full technical specification || Procurement of external IT consultancy ||                6,300,000 ||             12,600,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Secure facility to house the TFTS || option a - Capital expenditure for new facility ||             35,280,000 ||             40,320,000 ||   || Costs assumed to be 80% of the costs of a central unit at EU level on basis that national systems will be accessing less data 
 option b - Upgradation of existing facility ||                8,820,000 ||             10,080,000 ||   || Assumed to be 1/4th cost of new build 
 Development of IT infrastructure || Hardware procurement and installation ||                4,718,000 ||                4,536,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Software development ||             35,980,000 ||             51,800,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced by 2/3rds 
 Project management ||                3,150,000 ||                3,150,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced by 2/3rds 
 Contingency (10%) ||                4,384,800 ||                5,948,600 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Other costs || Development of training and certification ||                   252,000 ||                   378,000 ||   || 3 trainers X 10 to 15 days X EUR 600 per day X 14 Member States 
   || Initial training of analysts ||                     86,800 ||                   173,600 ||   || 10 analysts X 1 to 2 days X EUR 500 plus 2  trainers X 1 to 2 days X EUR 600  X 14 Member States 
   || Recruitment costs ||                   210,000 ||                   280,000 ||   || Launching a call for candidates, selection process etc. Figure based on a guesstimate 
 sub-total ||           101,684,800 ||           133,012,600 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || Human Resources || Preparation of requests for data and coordination with DPs ||                1,545,297 ||                1,545,297 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Supervision of all operations ||                2,532,394 ||                2,532,394 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Programme Management Team ||                7,597,181 ||                7,597,181 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) ||                4,267,589 ||                4,267,589 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External communication ||                1,066,897 ||                1,066,897 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Security agents ||                1,612,800 ||                1,612,800 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Independent Overseer ||                1,545,297 ||                1,545,297 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External Auditors ||                3,090,595 ||                3,090,595 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 TFTS Analysts ||             15,452,973 ||             15,452,973 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Legal Officer ||                1,207,125 ||                1,207,125 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Data Protection Officer ||                2,414,251 ||                2,414,251 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Verification and validation of requests ||                3,956,413 ||                3,956,413 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Operating costs of the system || Hardware maintenance ||                2,800,000 ||                3,500,000 ||   || EUR 200,000 to EUR 250,000 X 14 Member States 
 Vendor support ||                1,400,000 ||                2,800,000 ||   || EUR 100,000 to EUR 200,000 X 14 Member States 
 Software maintenance, updates & licenses ||                7,000,000 ||                8,400,000 ||   || EUR 500,000 to EUR 600,000 X 14 Member States 
 T1 data lines ||                     84,000 ||                   168,000 ||   || 500 to 1000 per month 
 Other costs || Security clearance of new staff ||                   168,000 ||                   210,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; half the persons require clearance on an annual basis 
 Overheads and other admin expenditure ||                2,100,000 ||                2,520,000 ||   || No. of FTE X EUR 10,000 to EUR 12,000 X 14 Member States 
 Operational expenditure ||                3,150,000 ||                4,200,000 ||   || No. of FTE X EUR 15,000 to EUR 20,000 X 14 Member States 
 sub-total ||             62,990,812 ||             68,086,812 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                   455,700 ||                   455,700 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
 Information Obligations || Preparation of reports by TFTS agency ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). 
 Monitoring and reporting by national civil service ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                   596,260 ||                   596,260 ||   ||   
 DP || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Familiarising with the new legislation and planning how to comply ||                1,050,000 ||                1,400,000 ||   || EUR 75,000 to 100,000 per Member State 
 Internal organisation || Adapting/setting up systems and processes to comply with the legislation ||                   200,000 ||                   400,000 ||   ||   
 IT costs || Data extraction system ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 HR costs || Security clearance of staff ||                        4,800 ||                        6,000 ||   || 6 X EUR 800 to 1000  per person; 
   || Initial staff training ||                        2,000 ||                        3,000 ||   ||   
 sub-total ||                1,356,800 ||                2,009,000 ||   ||   
 Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                   562,968 ||                   527,783 ||   || See HR costs 
 Operational costs || Technical updates (software and hardware) ||                   100,000 ||                   150,000 ||   ||   
 Staff training ||                     11,995 ||                     14,394 ||   || 3.75 FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                     23,031 ||                     23,031 ||   || 2 days of management time per month: 24days per year X daily wage  (EUR 670 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||                   697,994 ||                   715,208 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                     76,768 ||                     76,768 ||   || 2 staff X 5 days per month X EUR 674 
 sub-total ||                     76,768 ||                     76,768 ||   ||   
 B3.1 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Note: Costs are same as B1 except that (a) Member States can now request the central EU Agency to conduct searches on their behalf Member States could opt to either request searches to be run on their behalf by the central unit (having to substantiate their requests for searches or undertake their own searches, through designated national TFTS analysts which would be based in the same location as the EU TFTS unit; (b) the central EU Agency will employ a slightly higher number of analysts as compared to B1 
   ||   ||   ||   || Range of Costs (EUR) ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Development of full technical specification || Procurement of external IT consultancy ||                   450,000 ||                   900,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Secure facility to house the TFTS || option a - Capital expenditure for new facility ||                3,150,000 ||                3,600,000 ||   || Based on rough average cost of EUR 7000 to EUR 8000 per 1m2 for constructing a central facility, a back-up facility and office space, which are serviced and equipped (source: based on figures for construction of a UK data centre, 15 August 2007 www.datacenterjournal.com which were used in IA of IT Agency). The total floor space required for the TFTP is assumed to be 100m2 plus additional 350 m2 for accommodating 7 additional analysts (source: space requirements are based on a guesstimate) 
 option b - Upgradation of existing facility ||                   787,500 ||                   900,000 ||   || Assumed to be 1/4th cost of new build 
 Development of IT infrastructure || Hardware procurement and installation ||                   337,000 ||                   324,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Software development ||                   257,000 ||                   370,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Project management ||                     22,500 ||                     22,500 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Contingency (10%) ||                     61,650 ||                     71,650 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Other costs || Development of training and certification ||                     19,755 ||                     29,632 ||   || 3 AD11 staff X 10 to 15 days each 
   ||   || Initial training of analysts ||                        7,136 ||                     14,272 ||   || No. of analysts X 1 to 2 days X EUR 582 plus 2  trainers X 1 to 2 days X 658 
   ||   || Recruitment costs ||                     15,000 ||                     20,000 ||   || Launching a call for candidates, selection process etc. Figure based on a guesstimate 
 sub-total ||                5,335,405 ||                6,517,782 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || Human Resources || Preparation of requests for data and coordination with DPs ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Supervision of all operations ||                   209,827 ||                   209,827 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Programme Management Team ||                   419,654 ||                   419,654 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) ||                   353,600 ||                   353,600 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External communication ||                     88,400 ||                     88,400 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Security agents ||                   172,800 ||                   172,800 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Independent Overseer ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External Auditors ||                   256,078 ||                   256,078 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 TFTS Analysts ||                1,024,311 ||                1,024,311 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Legal Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Data Protection Officer ||                   200,038 ||                   200,038 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Verification and validation of requests ||                   327,817 ||                   327,817 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Operating costs of the system || Hardware maintenance ||                   200,000 ||                   250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 Vendor support ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   || Guesstimate 
 Software maintenance, updates & licenses ||                1,000,000 ||                1,250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 T1 data lines ||                        6,000 ||                     12,000 ||   || 500 to 1000 per month 
 Other costs || Security clearance of new staff ||                     12,000 ||                     14,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; half the persons require clearance on an annual basis 
 Overheads and other admin expenditure ||                   628,446 ||                   628,446 ||   || (No. of FTE + No. of national analysts located at EU central unit) X EUR 14,963 (Europol's overheads per FTE) 
 Operational expenditure ||                   992,124 ||                   992,124 ||   || No. of FTE  X EUR 35,433 (Europol's operational expenditure per FTE) 
 sub-total ||                6,347,192 ||                6,755,192 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                     34,550 ||                     61,600 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
 Information Obligations || Preparation of reports by centralised agency ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 EC monitoring and reporting ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     46,190 ||                     79,060 ||   ||   
 DP || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Familiarising with the new legislation and planning how to comply ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Internal organisation || Adapting/setting up systems and processes to comply with the legislation ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 IT costs || Data extraction system ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 HR costs || Security clearance of staff ||                        4,800 ||                        6,000 ||   || 6 X EUR 800 to 1000  per person; 
   || Initial staff training ||                        1,000 ||                        2,000 ||   ||   
 sub-total ||                   455,800 ||                   708,000 ||   ||   
 Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                   562,968 ||                   527,783 ||   || See HR costs 
 Operational costs || Technical updates (software and hardware) ||                   100,000 ||                   150,000 ||   ||   
 Staff training ||                     11,995 ||                     14,394 ||   || 3.75 FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs (EUR 640) 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                     11,515 ||                     11,515 ||   || 1 day of management time per month: 12 days per year X daily wage (EUR 640 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||                   686,479 ||                   703,692 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   || 2 staff X 2 days per month X EUR 640 
 sub-total ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   ||   
 MS || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Setting up protocols for coordination with EU unit ||                   130,000 ||                   195,000 ||   || EUR 10,000 to 14,000 per Member State X 13 Member States who don't designate national TFTP analysts at central EU Unit 
 HR costs || Initial expenditure for relocation of national analysts at EU unit ||                   210,000 ||                   280,000 ||   || EUR 15,000 to 20,000 per Member State X 14 Member States 
   || Initial staff training ||                     14,000 ||                     28,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per analyst 
 sub-total ||                   354,000 ||                   503,000 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) ||  HR costs ||  Staff costs ||                1,545,297 ||                1,545,297 ||   ||   
  Operational expenditure || Operational expenditure e.g. T&S, travel ||                   280,000 ||                   420,000 ||   || No. of TFTS Analysts X EUR 20,000 to 30,000 
   ||  Issuing regular guidance and updates  ||                   135,540 ||                   203,310 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10) X 27 Member States 
 sub-total ||                1,960,837 ||                2,168,607 ||   ||   
 Administrative || Information Obligations || Monitoring and reporting by national civil service ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   ||   
 B3.2 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Note: Costs are same as B1 except that (a) EU Central Unit extracts search results for Member States and analyses only for EU level bodies and third countries; (b) The Member States would be the only authorities to undertake the analysis of the searches 
   ||   ||   ||   || Range of Costs (EUR) ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Development of full technical specification || Procurement of external IT consultancy ||                   450,000 ||                   900,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Secure facility to house the TFTS || option a - Capital expenditure for new facility ||                3,150,000 ||                3,600,000 ||   || Based on rough average cost of EUR 7000 to EUR 8000 per 1m2 for constructing a central facility, a back-up facility and office space, which are serviced and equipped (source: based on figures for construction of a UK data centre, 15 August 2007 www.datacenterjournal.com which were used in IA of IT Agency). The total floor space required for the TFTP is assumed to be 100m2 plus additional 350 m2 for accommodating 7 additional analysts (source: space requirements are based on a guesstimate) 
 option b - Upgradation of existing facility ||                   787,500 ||                   900,000 ||   || Assumed to be 1/4 th cost of new build 
 Development of IT infrastructure || Hardware procurement and installation ||                   337,000 ||                   324,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Software development ||                   257,000 ||                   370,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Project management ||                     22,500 ||                     22,500 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Contingency (10%) ||                     61,650 ||                     71,650 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Other costs || Development of training and certification ||                     19,755 ||                     29,632 ||   || 3 AD11 staff X 10 to 15 days each 
   ||   || Initial training of analysts ||                        3,644 ||                        7,288 ||   || No. of analysts X 1 to 2 days X EUR 582 plus 2  trainers X 1 to 2 days X 658 
   ||   || Recruitment costs ||                     15,000 ||                     20,000 ||   || Launching a call for candidates, selection process etc. Figure based on a guesstimate 
 sub-total ||                5,335,405 ||                6,517,782 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || Human Resources || Preparation of requests for data and coordination with DPs ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Supervision of all operations ||                   209,827 ||                   209,827 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Programme Management Team ||                   419,654 ||                   419,654 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) ||                   353,600 ||                   353,600 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External communication ||                     88,400 ||                     88,400 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Security agents ||                   172,800 ||                   172,800 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Independent Overseer ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External Auditors ||                   256,078 ||                   256,078 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 TFTS Analysts ||                   512,156 ||                   512,156 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Legal Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Data Protection Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Verification and validation of requests ||                   163,909 ||                   163,909 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Operating costs of the system || Hardware maintenance ||                   200,000 ||                   250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 Vendor support ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   || Guesstimate 
 Software maintenance, updates & licenses ||                1,000,000 ||                1,250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 T1 data lines ||                        6,000 ||                     12,000 ||   || 500 to 1000 per month 
 Other costs || Security clearance of new staff ||                     12,000 ||                     14,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; half the persons require clearance on an annual basis 
 Overheads and other admin expenditure ||                   538,668 ||                   538,668 ||   || (No. of FTE + No. of national analysts located at EU central unit) X EUR 14,963 (Europol's overheads per FTE) 
 Operational expenditure ||                   496,062 ||                   496,062 ||   || No. of FTE X EUR 35,433 (Europol's operational expenditure per FTE) 
 sub-total ||                4,985,269 ||                5,393,269 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                     34,550 ||                     61,600 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
 Information Obligations || Preparation of reports by centralised agency ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 EC monitoring and reporting ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     46,190 ||                     79,060 ||   ||   
 DP || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Familiarising with the new legislation and planning how to comply ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Internal organisation || Adapting/setting up systems and processes to comply with the legislation ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 IT costs || Data extraction system ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 HR costs || Security clearance of staff ||                        4,800 ||                        6,000 ||   || 6 X EUR 800 to 1000  per person; 
   || Initial staff training ||                        1,000 ||                        2,000 ||   ||   
 sub-total ||                   455,800 ||                   708,000 ||   ||   
 Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                   562,968 ||                   527,783 ||   || See HR costs 
 Operational costs || Technical updates (software and hardware) ||                   100,000 ||                   150,000 ||   ||   
 Staff training ||                     11,995 ||                     14,394 ||   || 3.75 FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs (EUR 640) 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                     11,515 ||                     11,515 ||   || 1 day of management time per month: 12 days per year X daily wage (EUR 640 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||                   686,479 ||                   703,692 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   || 2 staff X 2 days per month X EUR 640 
 sub-total ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   ||   
 MS || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Setting up protocols for coordination with EU unit ||                   130,000 ||                   195,000 ||   || EUR 10,000 to 14,000 per Member State X 13 Member States who don't designate national TFTP analysts at central EU Unit 
 HR costs || Initial expenditure for relocation of national analysts at EU unit ||                   210,000 ||                   280,000 ||   || EUR 15,000 to 20,000 per Member State X 14 Member States 
   || Initial staff training ||                     14,000 ||                     28,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per analyst 
 sub-total ||                   354,000 ||                   503,000 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) ||  HR costs ||  Supervision of all operations ||                1,545,297 ||                1,545,297 ||   || See HR costs 
 Management of operations ||                2,532,394 ||                2,532,394 ||   || See HR costs 
 TFTS Analysts ||                1,545,297 ||                1,545,297 ||   || See HR costs 
 Legal Officers ||                1,207,125 ||                1,207,125 ||   || See HR costs 
 DPOs ||                1,207,125 ||                1,207,125 ||   || See HR costs 
 Verification and authorisation of requests ||                1,978,206 ||                1,978,206 ||   || See HR costs 
  Operational expenditure || Operational expenditure e.g. T&S, travel ||                   280,000 ||                   420,000 ||   || No. of TFTS Analysts X EUR 20,000 to 30,000 
   ||  Issuing regular guidance and updates  ||                   135,540 ||                   203,310 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10) X 27 Member States 
 sub-total ||             10,430,985 ||             10,638,755 ||   ||   
 Administrative || Information Obligations || Monitoring and reporting by national civil service ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   ||   
 B3.3 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Note: The main difference in costs relates to the creation of a new ad hoc body at EU level (FIU Platform) ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   || Range of Costs (EUR) ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice to set up legislative framework for TFTS ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Legislative framework for new ad hoc body at EU level ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || As above 
 Development of full technical specification || Procurement of external IT consultancy ||                   450,000 ||                   900,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Secure facility to house the TFTS || option a - Capital expenditure for new facility ||                3,150,000 ||                3,600,000 ||   || Based on rough average cost of EUR 7000 to EUR 8000 per 1m2 for constructing a central facility, a back-up facility and office space, which are serviced and equipped (source: based on figures for construction of a UK data centre, 15 August 2007 www.datacenterjournal.com which were used in IA of IT Agency). The total floor space required for the TFTP is assumed to be 100m2 plus additional 350 m2 for accommodating 7 additional analysts (source: space requirements are based on a guesstimate) 
 option b - Upgradation of existing facility ||                   787,500 ||                   900,000 ||   || Assumed to be 1/4th cost of new build 
 Development of IT infrastructure || Hardware procurement and installation ||                   337,000 ||                   324,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Software development ||                   257,000 ||                   370,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Project management ||                     22,500 ||                     22,500 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Contingency (10%) ||                     61,650 ||                     71,650 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Other costs || Development of training and certification ||                     19,755 ||                     29,632 ||   || 3 AD11 staff X 10 to 15 days each 
   ||   || Initial training of analysts ||                        7,136 ||                     14,272 ||   || No. of analysts X 1 to 2 days X EUR 502 plus 2  trainers X 1 to 2 days X 658 
 sub-total ||                5,585,405 ||                6,817,782 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || Human Resources || Preparation of requests for data and coordination with DPs ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Supervision of all operations ||                   209,827 ||                   209,827 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Programme Management Team ||                   629,481 ||                   629,481 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) ||                   353,600 ||                   353,600 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External communication ||                     88,400 ||                     88,400 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Security agents ||                   115,200 ||                   115,200 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Independent Overseer ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External Auditors ||                   256,078 ||                   256,078 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Legal Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Data Protection Officer ||                   200,038 ||                   200,038 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Verification and validation of requests ||                   327,817 ||                   327,817 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Operating costs of the system || Hardware maintenance ||                   200,000 ||                   250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 Vendor support ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   || Guesstimate 
 Software maintenance, updates & licenses ||                1,000,000 ||                1,250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 T1 data lines ||                        6,000 ||                     12,000 ||   || 500 to 1000 per month 
 Other costs || Security clearance of new staff ||                     12,000 ||                     14,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; half the persons require clearance on an annual basis 
 Overheads and other admin expenditure ||                   822,965 ||                   822,965 ||   || No. of FTE X EUR 14,963 (Europol's overheads per FTE) 
 Operational expenditure ||                   992,124 ||                   992,124 ||   || No. of FTE X EUR 35,433 (Europol's operational expenditure per FTE) 
 sub-total ||                5,669,627 ||                6,077,627 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                     34,550 ||                     61,600 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
 Information Obligations || Preparation of reports by centralised agency ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 EC monitoring and reporting ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     46,190 ||                     79,060 ||   ||   
 DP || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Familiarising with the new legislation and planning how to comply ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Internal organisation || Adapting/setting up systems and processes to comply with the legislation ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 IT costs || Data extraction system ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   ||   
 HR costs || Security clearance of staff ||                        4,800 ||                        6,000 ||   || 6 X EUR 800 to 1000  per person; 
   || Initial staff training ||                        1,000 ||                        2,000 ||   ||   
 sub-total ||                   455,800 ||                   708,000 ||   ||   
 Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                   562,968 ||                   527,783 ||   || See HR costs 
 Operational costs || Technical updates (software and hardware) ||                   100,000 ||                   150,000 ||   ||   
 Staff training ||                     11,995 ||                     14,394 ||   || 3.75 FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs (EUR 640). 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                     11,515 ||                     11,515 ||   || 1 day of management time per month: 12 days per year X daily wage (EUR 640 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||                   686,479 ||                   703,692 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   || 2 staff X 2 days per month X EUR 640 
 sub-total ||                     15,354 ||                     15,354 ||   ||   
 MS || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Setting up protocols for coordination with EU unit ||                   130,000 ||                   195,000 ||   || EUR 10,000 to 14,000 per Member State X 13 Member States who don't designate national TFTP analysts at central EU Unit 
 HR costs || Initial expenditure for relocation of national analysts at EU unit ||                   210,000 ||                   280,000 ||   || EUR 15,000 to 20,000 per Member State X 14 Member States 
   || Initial staff training ||                     14,000 ||                     28,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per analyst 
 sub-total ||                   354,000 ||                   503,000 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) ||  HR costs ||  Supervision of all operations ||                4,883,902 ||                4,883,902 ||   || See HR costs 
 Management of operations ||                4,883,902 ||                4,883,902 ||   || See HR costs 
 TFTS Analysts ||                2,980,216 ||                2,980,216 ||   || See HR costs 
 Legal Officers ||                2,328,027 ||                2,328,027 ||   || See HR costs 
 DPOs ||                2,328,027 ||                2,328,027 ||   || See HR costs 
 Verification and authorisation of requests ||                3,815,112 ||                3,815,112 ||   || See HR costs 
  Operational expenditure || Operational expenditure e.g. T&S, travel ||                   540,000 ||                   810,000 ||   || No. of TFTS Analysts X EUR 20,000 to 30,000 
   ||  Issuing regular guidance and updates  ||                   135,540 ||                   203,310 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10) X 27 Member States 
 sub-total ||             21,894,728 ||             22,232,498 ||   ||   
 Administrative || Information Obligations || Monitoring and reporting by national civil service ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   ||   
 B4.1 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   || Range of Costs (EUR) ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Development of full technical specification || Procurement of external IT consultancy ||                   450,000 ||                   900,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Other costs || Development of training and certification ||                     19,755 ||                     29,632 ||   || 3 AD11 staff X 10 to 15 days each 
   ||   || Initial training of analysts ||                        3,644 ||                        7,288 ||   || No. of analysts X 1 to 2 days X EUR 582 plus 2  trainers X 1 to 2 days X 658 
   ||   || Recruitment costs ||                     15,000 ||                     20,000 ||   || Launching a call for candidates, selection process etc. Figure based on a guesstimate 
 sub-total ||                   738,399 ||                1,256,920 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || Human Resources || Supervision of all operations ||                   209,827 ||                   209,827 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Independent Overseer ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External Auditors ||                   256,078 ||                   256,078 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 TFTS Analysts ||                   512,156 ||                   512,156 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Legal Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Data Protection Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Other costs || Security clearance of new staff ||                        4,400 ||                     14,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; half the persons require clearance on an annual basis 
 Overheads and other admin expenditure ||                   164,593 ||                   164,593 ||   || (No. of FTE + No. of national analysts located at EU central unit) X EUR 14,963 (Europol's overheads per FTE) 
 Operational expenditure ||                   389,763 ||                   389,763 ||   || No. of FTE  X EUR 35,433 (Europol's operational expenditure per FTE) 
 sub-total ||                1,864,893 ||                1,874,493 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                     34,550 ||                     61,600 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
 Information Obligations || Preparation of reports ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 EC monitoring and reporting ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     46,190 ||                     79,060 ||   ||   
 DP || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Familiarising with the new legislation and planning how to comply ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Internal organisation || Adapting/setting up systems and processes to comply with the legislation ||                   500,000 ||                   600,000 ||   ||   
 HR costs || Security clearance of staff ||                        8,800 ||                     11,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; 
   || Initial staff training ||                        1,000 ||                        2,000 ||   ||   
 sub-total ||                   759,800 ||                   913,000 ||   ||   
 Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                1,548,163 ||                1,548,163 ||   || See HR costs 
   || Staff training ||                     35,186 ||                     42,223 ||   || No. of FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs (EUR 640) 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                     23,031 ||                     23,031 ||   || 2 day of management time per month: 24 days per year X daily wage (EUR 640 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||                1,606,379 ||                1,613,416 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                     76,768 ||                     76,768 ||   || 2 staff X 5 days per month X EUR 640 
 sub-total ||                     76,768 ||                     76,768 ||   ||   
 MS || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Setting up protocols for coordination with DPs ||                   270,000 ||                   405,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per Member State 
   || Initial staff training ||                     14,000 ||                     28,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per analyst 
 sub-total ||                   284,000 ||                   433,000 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) ||  HR costs ||  Staff costs ||                1,545,297 ||                1,545,297 ||   ||   
   ||  Issuing regular guidance and updates  ||                   135,540 ||                   203,310 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10) X 27 Member States 
 sub-total ||                1,680,837 ||                1,748,607 ||   ||   
 Administrative || Information Obligations || Monitoring and reporting by national civil service ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   ||   
 B4.2 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Note: Costs are same as B4.1 except that analysts are actually located on DP's premises ||   ||   ||   ||   
   ||   ||   ||   || Range of Costs (EUR) ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Development of full technical specification || Procurement of external IT consultancy ||                   450,000 ||                   900,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Secure facility to house the TFTS || Upgradation of existing facility ||                   787,500 ||                   900,000 ||   || Assumed to be 1/4 th  cost of new build 
 Development of IT infrastructure || Hardware procurement and installation ||                   337,000 ||                   324,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Software development ||                   257,000 ||                   370,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Project management ||                     22,500 ||                     22,500 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Contingency (10%) ||                     61,650 ||                     71,650 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Other costs || Development of training and certification ||                     19,755 ||                     29,632 ||   || 3 AD11 staff X 10 to 15 days each 
   ||   || Initial training of analysts ||                        9,464 ||                        9,464 ||   || No. of analysts X 1 to 2 days X EUR 582 plus 2  trainers X 1 to 2 days X 658 
   ||   || Recruitment costs ||                     15,000 ||                     20,000 ||   || Launching a call for candidates, selection process etc. Figure based on a guesstimate 
 sub-total ||                2,209,869 ||                2,947,246 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || Human Resources || Supervision of all operations ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Programme Management Team ||                   419,654 ||                   419,654 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) ||                   839,308 ||                   839,308 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External communication ||                     88,400 ||                     88,400 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Independent Overseer ||                     57,600 ||                     57,600 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External Auditors ||                   256,078 ||                   256,078 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 TFTS Analysts ||                   512,156 ||                   512,156 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Legal Officer ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Data Protection Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Operating costs of the system || Hardware maintenance ||                   200,000 ||                   250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 Vendor support ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   || Guesstimate 
 Software maintenance, updates & licenses ||                1,000,000 ||                1,250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 T1 data lines ||                        6,000 ||                     12,000 ||   || 500 to 1000 per month 
 Other costs || Security clearance of new staff ||                        6,800 ||                     14,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; half the persons require clearance on an annual basis 
 Overheads and other admin expenditure ||                   254,371 ||                   254,371 ||   || (No. of FTE + No. of national analysts located at EU central unit) X EUR 14,963 (Europol's overheads per FTE) 
 Operational expenditure ||                   602,361 ||                   602,361 ||   || No. of FTE  X EUR 35,433 (Europol's operational expenditure per FTE) 
 sub-total ||                4,698,824 ||                5,112,024 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                     34,550 ||                     61,600 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
 Information Obligations || Preparation of reports ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 EC monitoring and reporting ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     46,190 ||                     79,060 ||   ||   
 DP || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Familiarising with the new legislation and planning how to comply ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Internal organisation || Adapting/setting up systems and processes to comply with the legislation ||                   500,000 ||                   600,000 ||   ||   
 HR costs || Security clearance of staff ||                        4,000 ||                        5,000 ||   || No. of staff X1000  per person 
   || Initial staff training ||                        1,000 ||                        2,000 ||   ||   
 sub-total ||                   755,000 ||                   907,000 ||   ||   
 Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||                   703,711 ||                   703,711 ||   || See HR costs 
   || Staff training ||                     15,993 ||                     19,192 ||   || No. of FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs (EUR 640) 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                     23,031 ||                     23,031 ||   || 2 day of management time per month: 24 days per year X daily wage (EUR 640 + 50%) 
 sub-total ||                   742,735 ||                   745,933 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                     76,768 ||                     76,768 ||   || 2 staff X 5 days per month X EUR 640 
 sub-total ||                     76,768 ||                     76,768 ||   ||   
 MS || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Setting up protocols for coordination with DPs ||                   130,000 ||                   195,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per Member State 
 HR costs || Initial expenditure for relocation of national analysts at EU unit ||                   210,000 ||                   280,000 ||   || EUR 15,000 to 20,000 per analyst 
   || Initial staff training ||                     14,000 ||                     28,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per analyst 
 sub-total ||                   354,000 ||                   503,000 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) ||  HR costs ||  Staff costs ||                1,545,297 ||                1,545,297 ||   ||   
  Operational expenditure || Operational expenditure e.g. T&S, travel ||                   280,000 ||                   420,000 ||   || No. of TFTS Analysts X EUR 20,000 to 30,000 
   ||  Issuing regular guidance and updates  ||                   135,540 ||                   203,310 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10) X 27 Member States 
 sub-total ||                1,960,837 ||                2,168,607 ||   ||   
 Administrative || Information Obligations || Monitoring and reporting by national civil service ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   ||   
 D2 || Cost Estimates ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
   || Note: The costs are same as B3.1 except that the system would work with multiple Designated Providers and hence access, search and analyse FIN and other types of financial messages / other type of transaction data. The system will cover all ACH (42); SWIFT; and, PayPal 
   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Budget || Cost Category || Cost Heading || Cost Item || Min || Max ||   || Explanatory comments 
 EU || Initial Set-up Costs || Development of EU legislative instrument || Procurement of external legal advice ||                   250,000 ||                   300,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses 
 Development of full technical specification || Procurement of external IT consultancy ||                   450,000 ||                   900,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Secure facility to house the TFTS || option a - Capital expenditure for new facility ||                3,150,000 ||                3,600,000 ||   || Based on rough average cost of EUR 7000 to EUR 8000 per 1m2 for constructing a central facility, a back-up facility and office space, which are serviced and equipped (source: based on figures for construction of a UK data centre, 15 August 2007 www.datacenterjournal.com which were used in IA of IT Agency). The total floor space required for the TFTP is assumed to be 100m2 plus additional 350 m2 for accommodating 7 additional analysts (source: space requirements are based on a guesstimate) 
 option b - Upgradation of existing facility ||                   787,500 ||                   900,000 ||   || Assumed to be 1/4th cost of new build 
 Development of IT infrastructure || Hardware procurement and installation ||                   337,000 ||                   324,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Software development ||                   257,000 ||                   370,000 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Project management ||                     22,500 ||                     22,500 ||   || See sheet IT costs. It is assumed that UST will assist so costs reduced to 10% 
 Contingency (10%) ||                     61,650 ||                     71,650 ||   || See sheet IT costs 
 Other costs || Development of training and certification ||                     19,755 ||                     29,632 ||   || 3 AD11 staff X 10 to 15 days each 
   ||   || Initial training of analysts ||                        7,136 ||                     14,272 ||   || No. of analysts X 1 to 2 days X EUR 582 plus 2  trainers X 1 to 2 days X 658 
   ||   || Recruitment costs ||                     15,000 ||                     20,000 ||   || Launching a call for candidates, selection process etc. Figure based on a guesstimate 
 sub-total ||                5,357,541 ||                6,552,054 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) || Human Resources || Preparation of requests for data and coordination with DPs ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Supervision of all operations ||                   209,827 ||                   209,827 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Programme Management Team ||                   419,654 ||                   419,654 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Dedicated Technicians/ IT Staff (24/7 availability and back up) ||                   353,600 ||                   353,600 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External communication ||                     88,400 ||                     88,400 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Security agents ||                   172,800 ||                   172,800 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Independent Overseer ||                   128,039 ||                   128,039 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 External Auditors ||                   256,078 ||                   256,078 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 TFTS Analysts ||                1,024,311 ||                1,024,311 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Legal Officer ||                   100,019 ||                   100,019 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Data Protection Officer ||                   200,038 ||                   200,038 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Verification and validation of requests ||                   327,817 ||                   327,817 ||   || See HR costs sheet 
 Operating costs of the system || Hardware maintenance ||                   200,000 ||                   250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 Vendor support ||                   100,000 ||                   200,000 ||   || Guesstimate 
 Software maintenance, updates & licenses ||                1,000,000 ||                1,250,000 ||   || Based on IT Agency IA and  US Feasibility Study of cross border electronic funds transfer system 
 T1 data lines ||                        6,000 ||                     12,000 ||   || 500 to 1000 per month 
 Other costs || Security clearance of new staff ||                     12,000 ||                     14,000 ||   || €800 to €1000  per person; half the persons require clearance on an annual basis 
 Overheads and other admin expenditure ||                   628,446 ||                   628,446 ||   || (No. of FTE + No. of national analysts located at EU central unit) X EUR 14,963 (Europol's overheads per FTE) 
 Operational expenditure ||                   992,124 ||                   992,124 ||   || No. of FTE  X EUR 35,433 (Europol's operational expenditure per FTE) 
 sub-total ||                6,347,192 ||                6,755,192 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Independent Review || Independent Review of EU-TFTS ||                     34,550 ||                     61,600 ||   || 5 Member review team X 5 to 10 working days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). Plus reimbursable expenses (EUR 500 per person per day) and travel (EUR 1,500 X 5) 
 Information Obligations || Preparation of reports by centralised agency ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 EC monitoring and reporting ||                        5,820 ||                        8,730 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 582 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     46,190 ||                     79,060 ||   ||   
 DP* || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Familiarising with the new legislation and planning how to comply ||             11,000,000 ||             13,200,000 ||   || Educated guess: 2,500 per day X 90 to 100 days legal input + 25,000 to 50,000 expenses X 44 DPs 
 Internal organisation || Adapting/setting up systems and processes to comply with the legislation ||                4,400,000 ||                8,800,000 ||   || EUR 100,000 to 200,000 X 44 DPs 
 IT costs || Data extraction system ||                4,400,000 ||                8,800,000 ||   || EUR 100,000 to 200,000 X 44 DPs 
 HR costs || Security clearance of staff ||                   140,800 ||                   176,000 ||   || 4 X EUR 800 to 1000  per person X 44 DPs 
   || Initial staff training ||                     44,000 ||                     88,000 ||   || EUR 1,000 to 2,000 X 44DPs 
 sub-total ||             19,984,800 ||             31,064,000 ||   ||   
 Running costs (annual) || HR costs || Staff costs ||             23,222,449 ||             23,222,449 ||   || See HR costs X 44 DPs 
 Operational costs || Technical updates (software and hardware) ||                4,400,000 ||                6,600,000 ||   || EUR 100,000 to 150,000 X 44 DPs 
 Staff training ||                   527,783 ||                   633,340 ||   || 3.75 FTE X 5 to 6 days a year X Daily labour costs (EUR 640) X 44 DPs 
 Overheads || Management costs ||                   506,672 ||                   506,672 ||   || 1 day of management time per month: 12 days per year X daily wage (EUR 640 + 50%) X 44 DPs 
 sub-total ||             28,656,903 ||             30,962,460 ||   ||   
 Administrative Costs || Information Obligations || Record keeping and reporting ||                1,351,124 ||                1,351,124 ||   || 2 staff X 2 days per month X EUR 640 X 44 DPs 
 sub-total ||                1,351,124 ||                1,351,124 ||   ||   
 MS || Initial Set-up Costs || Legal costs || Setting up protocols for coordination with EU unit ||                   130,000 ||                   195,000 ||   || EUR 10,000 to 14,000 per Member State X 13 Member States who don't designate national TFTP analysts at central EU Unit 
 HR costs || Initial expenditure for relocation of national analysts at EU unit ||                   210,000 ||                   280,000 ||   || EUR 15,000 to 20,000 per Member State X 14 Member States 
   || Initial staff training ||                     14,000 ||                     28,000 ||   || EUR 1000 to 2000 per analyst 
 sub-total ||                   354,000 ||                   503,000 ||   ||   
 Running Costs (annual) ||  HR costs ||  Staff costs ||                1,545,297 ||                1,545,297 ||   ||   
  Operational expenditure || Operational expenditure e.g. T&S, travel ||                   280,000 ||                   420,000 ||   || No. of TFTS Analysts X EUR 20,000 to 30,000 
   ||  Issuing regular guidance and updates  ||                   135,540 ||                   203,310 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10) X 27 Member States 
 sub-total ||                1,960,837 ||                2,168,607 ||   ||   
 Administrative || Information Obligations || Monitoring and reporting by national civil service ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   || 10 to 15 days X daily labour cost of EUR 502 (AD-10). 
 sub-total ||                     70,280 ||                     70,280 ||   ||   
*Costs have been multiplied by  44
[1] Council Decision of 13 July 2010, OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p.3
[2] See, for example, Resolution TA(2010)0143
[3] OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p.1
[4] COM(2010)673 Final
[5] COM(2011)429 Final
[6] SWD(2012) 454 final of 14.12.2012
[7] Among the consulted stakeholders were representatives from the US
Treasury, Europol, FIU.net, EEAS, SWIFT, EDPS as well as experts from various
MS’ authorities.
[8] The Europol EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2010 (TE–SAT).
Available at:
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-SAT/Tesat2010.pdf
[10] The economic costs of March 11: Measuring the direct economic costs
of the terrorist attacks on March 11, 2004 in Madrid (Mikel Buesa, Aurelia
Valino, Joost Theijs, Thomas Baumert and Javier Gonzalez Gomez)
[11] Economic Impacts of Global Terrorism: From Munich to Bali (2006,
Barth, J.R., T. Li, D. McCarthy, T. Phumiwasana, and G.Yago)
The Economic Analysis of Terrorism
(2007, Bruck, T.)  
[12] 14469/4/05 REV of 30 November 2005.
[13] 11778/1/08 REV 1
[14] COM(2013) 45 final.
[15] Europol TE-SAT 2012 Report
[16] SWD(2012) 454 final 
[17] SWD(2012) 454 final of 14.12.2012
[20] Council Decision of 13 July 2010, OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p.3