COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 and Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/xxx as regards the use of the Entry/Exit System (EES)
Date: 2016-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, biometrics, border control, data processing, exchange of information, external border of the EU, foreign national, information system, traveller

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.4.2016  SWD(2016) 116 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 and Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011  and   Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/xxx as regards the use of the Entry/Exit System (EES) {COM(2016) 194 final} {COM(2016) 196 final} {SWD(2016) 115 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact  assessment  on  the  Modified  proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  an  EU  Entry  Exit  System  and  for  a  
Regulation amending the Schengen Border Code (Regulation (EC) N°562/2006)   

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  
Scope of the Impact Assessment: third-country nationals (TCN) having the right to enter for a short stay of up to 
90 days within any 180 day period or on the basis of a touring visa.  
Addressed problems and main drivers: (1) the increasing number of border crossings in and out of the Schengen 
area (around 300 million TCN border crossings estimated for the year 2025) leading to delays in border checks, 
(2)  the  current  control  of  authorised  period  of  stay  of  TCN  is  error  prone,  slow  and  not  systematically 
implemented (complexity and  slowness of the current travel document stamping obligation), (3)  current border 
control process cannot report and identify overstayers systematically, easily and in a reliable manner, resulting in 
a lack of reliable information on irregular immigration and problems  for return (absence of modern means and 
technologies) and (4) the need to further reinforce the fight against international criminality, terrorism and other 
security threats. 
Stakeholders:  mainly  TCN  crossing  the  Schengen  borders,  border  guards,  visa/immigration  authorities  and 
carriers. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  
The general policy objectives of the Entry Exit System (EES) are:  
(1)  To improve the management of external borders;  
(2)  To reduce irregular migration, by addressing the phenomenon of overstaying; 
(3)  To contribute to the fight against terrorism and serious crime and ensure a high level of internal security.  
The  EES  will  facilitate  the  border  crossing  of  legitimate  travellers  while  increasing  the  possibility  to  identify 
overstayers  and  irregular  migrants  as  well  as  facilitating  the  implementation  of  return  decisions.  It  will  also 
ensure a better identification of third country nationals and will allow detecting people using several identities. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  
The absence of internal borders in the Schengen area requires a sound management of external borders where 
each  country  has  to  control  the  external  border  on  behalf  of  the  other  Schengen  States.  Consequently,  no 
Member State (MS) is able to cope on its own with irregular immigration. A person may enter the Schengen area 
at a border crossing point in a MS where a national register of entry/exit data is used, but exit through a border 
crossing point where no such system is used. The monitoring of compliance with EU rules on authorised stays 
can  therefore  not  be  done  by  MS  acting  alone.  In  an  area  without  internal  borders,  action  against  irregular 
immigration should be undertaken in common. Moreover, better information on cross border movements of TCN 
at EU level would establish a factual basis to develop and adapt the EU migration policy. Considering all this the 
EU is better placed than MS to take the appropriate measures. 

B. Solutions 

Which is the preferred policy option? Why?  
The preferred options for the implementation of the EES have the following characteristics: 
(1)  There  will  be  one  single  system:  the  EES.  Interoperability  between  the  EES  and  the  existing  Visa 
Information  System  (VIS)  is  established  at  central  level.  Communications  with  MS  occur  via  a  National 
Uniform Interface which is the same for all MS.   

(2)  The biometric  identifiers  for  EES are  4  fingerprints used  in combination  with the  facial  image.  This  option 

meets both the objectives of sufficiently accurate identification and of border crossing facilitation. 

(3)  The approach for facilitation is based on the implementation of self-service systems used by TCN to start 
border  clearance  which  will  be  completed  by  providing  additional  information  on  border  guard's  request. 
National Registered Traveller Programmes could be established on a voluntary basis. This is the preferred 
option  as  it  combines  many  positive  impacts,  addresses  a  larger  group  of  travellers  and  has  the  best 
cost/benefit efficiency.  

(4)  The retention period of 5 years for stored data reduces the re-enrolment frequency and will be beneficial for 
all  travellers,  while  allowing  the  border  guard  to  perform  the  necessary  risk  analysis  required  by  the 
Schengen Borders Code.. 

(5)  From  the  start  of  operations,  MS'  law  enforcement  authorities  and  Europol  will  have  access  to  the  EES, 
under strictly defined conditions and in accordance with the relevant data protection rules. Providing access 
to data to law enforcement authorities from the start is coherent with the VIS Regulation. 

Who supports which option?  
MS support in general the options of the preferred solution. Divergences exist between immigration services who 
favour  limited  biometrics  (as  proposed)  and  law  enforcement  services  who  favour  extensive  biometrics.  Some 
MS may still bring up the point that EES should record entries and exits of residence permit or card holders. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                                                                  
 
The European Parliament (EP) appreciates the interoperability between EES and VIS, the limited biometrics, the 
reduced budget as compared to the 2013 proposal and the fact that facilitation does not require as much budget 
as the mainstream system.  Part of the EP and the EDPS will challenge the data retention period and the access 
to EES by law enforcement authorities.       

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option?  
Social  impact:  Positive  impact  on  border  crossing  time  at  entry  for  travellers  using  the  self-service  kiosks. 
Benefits for border guards in terms of saved workload. Positive impact for law enforcement authorities. 
Economic  cost:  For  some  categories  of  travellers,  the  enrolment  in  EES  will  generate  an  additional  workload 
while the use of self-services solutions will reduce the workload. This explains why at the beginning the benefits 
are  low  as  all  visa-exempt  third  country  nationals  need  to  be  enrolled  with  facial  image  and  4  fingerprints. 
Furthermore, EES will increase the possibility to identify overstayers and irregular migrants and will help for the 
implementation of return decisions.  
With the benefits that can be quantified, the net present value of the EES becomes positive four years after start 
of operations and the cumulated benefits over ten years are more than 2,5 times the accumulated costs over the 
same period.  

What are the costs of the preferred option?  
Social impact: Slight negative impact on border crossing time at entry for visa-exempt travellers at first enrolment 
(i.e.  estimated  additional  40  seconds  to  the  border  crossing  time),  however  mitigated  by  the  use  of  process 
accelerators such as self-service kiosks (see above). 
Economic cost: The development cost of the EES to be borne by the EU budget amounts to €394,77 million over 
the  three  years  required  to  build  the  system.  The  first  year  of  operations  the  EU  budget  would  bear  a  total 
operations  cost  of  €45,47  million.  The  changes  required  to  VIS  and  SIS  have  been  estimated  at  €40  million 
development cost and no additional operational cost. The cost to be borne by the EU budget amounts to €480,2 
million over 4 years (3 years development and 1 year operations). 
The implementation cost on the MS side would consist respectively of €57,0 million one-off set-up costs of new 
processes and infrastructure improvement and €109,5 million equipment cost both assumed to be done over the 
3-year development period. The annual maintenance cost of the investments will be €11 million. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  
The  EES  will  have  a  positive  effect  for  carriers  as  it  facilitates  the  implementation  of  their  legal  obligation  to 
check that TCN that are carried to the Schengen border are in possession of the travel documents required for 
entry.  
The EES will decrease the supply of informal labour in the EU by addressing the phenomenon of overstaying. 
The impact of the EES on tourism and SMEs is estimated to be negligible.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  
The  EES  has  a  significant  and  positive  impact  on  the  way  border  guards  perform  their  checks  (e.g.  they  are 
relieved from the manual reading of entry and exit stamps and the calculation of the authorised duration of stay). 
The  EES  does  not  create  any  additional  administrative  burden  to  private  or  public  organisations  because  all 
legal reporting obligations will be obtained from reports produced by the system. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  
(1)  Fundamental rights (see section 6.1.4 of the IA for the impact on Protection of Personal Data and 6.1.5 for 
impact on other Fundamental Rights). EES stores a small amount of personal data but including biometrics 
for  a  large  amount  of  persons.  However  the  minimum  data  set  is  stored  for  the  minimum  amount  of  time 
that also provides benefits for the traveller. Data are also only accessed by specific authorities. 

(2)  Law  Enforcement  authorities  (see  section  6.4.3  of  the  IA).  Law  enforcement  authorities  are  given  access 
the EES data under strict conditions which guarantee that the access is related to a case and is meaningful. 
International Relations (see section 6.5 of the IA). Some visa-exempt countries might raise objections that 
their citizens are fingerprinted at first entry into the Schengen area.   

(3) 

D. Follow up  

How will monitoring and evaluation be performed? 
The Commission shall ensure that systems are in place to monitor the functioning of the entry/exit system and 
evaluate them against the main policy objectives. Two years after the EES starts operations and every two years 
thereafter, euLISA should submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a report on the 
technical  functioning  of  the  system.  Moreover,  two years  after  the  EES  starts  operations  and  every  four  years 
thereafter, the Commission should produce an overall evaluation of the system. 

3