COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA, as regards the exchange of information on third country nationals and as regards the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), and replacing Council Decision 2009/316/JHA
Date: 2016-01-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU police cooperation, criminal record, exchange of information, foreign national, information system, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, third country

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 19.1.2016  SWD(2016) 5 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA, as regards the exchange of information on third country nationals and as regards the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), and replacing Council Decision 2009/316/JHA {COM(2016) 7 final} {SWD(2016) 4 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary  

Impact  assessment  on  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  amending  Council  Framework  Decision 
2009/315/JHA, as regards the exchange of information on third country nationals and as regards the 
European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), and replacing Council Decision 2009/316/JHA 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  
The existing electronic system (ECRIS – European Criminal Records Information System) to 
exchange  information  on  previous  convictions  handed  down  against  a  specific  person  by 
criminal  courts  in  the  EU  for  the  purposes  of  criminal  proceedings  and,  if  permitted  so  by 
national law, for other purposes, is inefficient for TCN. ECRIS does not contain a mechanism 
to easily identify Member States holding criminal record information on TCN. Member States 
wanting such information have to send 'blanket' requests to all Member States, including (the 
majority  of)  the  Member  States  not  holding  the  requested  information.  The  administrative 
burden caused by having to respond to 'blanket' requests has been identified as the most costly 
element (estimated at up to € 78 million) of the ECRIS workflow, if Member States were to 
systematically  send  such  requests.  As  ECRIS  is  inefficient  with  regard  to  TCN,  in  practice, 
Member  States  do  not  use  the  full  potential  of  ECRIS  with  regard  to  TCN.  Thus,  complete 
information  on the criminal history  of convicted TCN  is  not  always available to  courts, law 
enforcement authorities, and other administrative authorities according to national law. Other 
equally or more efficient information exchange channels do not exist. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  
General objectives:  

  To  improve  the  functioning  of  a  common  area  of  security  and  justice  by  improving 

information exchange in criminal matters.  

  To reduce crime and foster crime prevention (also with regard to terrorism). 
  To  ensure  equal  treatment  of  TCN  and  EU  nationals  with  regard  to  an  efficient 

exchange of criminal record information. 

Specific objectives:  

  To  reduce  the  number  of  unnecessary  requests  for  TCN-related  criminal  record 

information and the resulting costs. 

  To increase criminal record information exchange through ECRIS with regard to TCN. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
The initiative is expected to provide for a common mechanism aiming at standardised, rapid, 
coordinated and efficient exchange of  information on criminal convictions between Member 
States.  This  objective  cannot  be  achieved  by  Member  States  alone  but  requires  concerted 
action by all Member States. It cannot be expected that uncoordinated action at Member State 
level would produce sufficient effects of scale to overcome the deficiencies of the system in 
its current form. 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a 
preferred choice or not? Why?  

  Option 1: maintaining the status quo. 

  Option 2: non-legislative option: a voluntary project among Member States for a more 
efficient mechanism to exchange criminal record information on TCN, co-financed by 
the Commission.  

2 

 
 
  Option 3 (preferred option): legislative option: a search mechanism to identify Member 
States  holding  criminal  record  information  on  TCN  consisting  of  identity  data  of 
convicted TCN (index-filter) that can be searched by a hit-/no-hit search mechanism. 
The  index-filter  would  be  anonymised  and  distributed  to  all  other  Member  States 
enabling them to search at their own premises. A "hit" would identify Member States 
holding  criminal  record  information  on  a  particular  TCN.  The  complete  information 
can then be requested through the established ECRIS. 

  Option 4: as option 3 but the index data would be stored at a central EU-body and not 

be anonymised.  

Option  3  is  the  preferred  option  because  it  offers  a  mechanism  to  efficiently  identify 
Member  States  holding  criminal  record  information  on  a  particular  TCN.  As  option  3 
implies  a  legal  obligation  for  all  Member  States,  it  will  guarantee  a  common  approach. 
Option 3 does not require the establishment of an additional EU-level system, making it 
more cost-efficient than option 4.  

Who supports which option? 
All  Member  States  support  a  regulatory  option.  A  large  majority  of  Member  States  can 
support  option  3  if  the  additional  software  needed  could  be  integrated  smoothly  into  the 
existing networks at national level and financial support would be available. A few Member 
States support option 4. Fundamental rights stakeholders see merits in a decentralised system 
compared to a central one.   

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?                                 
There are no significant direct impacts in economic, social or environmental areas.  
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?                              
The set-up costs estimates are: 
- For the EU: € 1 089 000. 
- For 28 Member States: € 768 000. 
- Total set-up costs: € 1 857 000. 
The ongoing (yearly recurring maintenance and administrative) costs estimates are: 
- For the EU: € 668 000. 
- For 28 Member States: these costs are expected to gradually increase over the years, starting 
from € 5 304 000 up to a maximum of € 12 804 000. 
- The total on-going cost (incurred by the 28 Member States and the EU) is subsequently 
expected to increase gradually over the years, starting from € 5 972 000 up to a maximum of € 
13 472 000. 
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  

Not affected. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
See above under "costs of the preferred option". 
Will there be other significant impacts?  
No other significant impacts.  

When will the policy be reviewed?  
Two years after adoption of the legal instrument. 

D. Follow up 

3