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 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement
Date: 2018-04-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU national, European citizenship, external border of the EU, foreign national, free movement of persons, freedom of movement, identity document, personal data, residence permit

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 17.4.2018  SWD(2018) 111 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 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement  {COM(2018) 212 final} - {SWD(2018) 110 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact  assessment  on  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
strengthening  the  security  of  identity  cards  of  Union  citizens  and  of  residence  documents  issued  to  Union 
citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? Maximum 11 lines 
The main problems addressed by the initiative, affecting free movement and internal security, are: 

 
 
 

insufficient security of national ID cards and residence documents issued to non-EU family members; 
insufficient acceptance by public and private entities of ID cards and residence documents; 
complexity in issuing, handling and administering these documents. 

These problems are mainly driven by differences and inconsistency in the format, design and layout of ID cards 
and  residence  documents,  and  insufficient  coordination  of,  awareness  amongst  and  training  for  stakeholders 
involved  in  handling  these  documents.  These  problems  make  it  more  complicated  to  reliably  identify  the 
document  holder  and  authenticate  the  documents  and  increase  the  risk  of  these  being  misused  or  wrongly 
rejected  (e.g.  at  border  crossings,  in  administrative  registration,  when  accessing  services).  All  this  leads  to 
considerable  burden  and  cost  for  (a)  EU  citizens  and  their  family  members  when  travelling  or  exercising  their 
right to free movement; (b) public authorities, such as border guards; and (c) public and private sector entities, 
such as social security services, banks and airlines. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve? Maximum 8 lines 
The general objective of the proposal is twofold: 
• to improve security within the EU and at its borders; 
• to facilitate EU citizens’ right to move and reside freely in the EU. 
The specific objectives of the proposal are:  
• to improve acceptance and authentication of ID cards and residence documents and reduce document fraud; 
• to improve identification of people based upon ID documents; 
• to raise awareness about these documents and the rights linked to them, including through training; 
• to simplify daily life for citizens, cut red tape and lower costs for all stakeholders. 

What is the added value of action at EU level (subsidiarity) Maximum 7 lines 
EU action is needed to promote the free movement of persons and increase the level of security within the EU, 
as  both  issues  have  a  cross-border  dimension  and  cannot  be  dealt  with  by  individual  Member  States  alone. 
Consistent and appropriate measures are needed to address the problems identified. This will require a common 
EU-wide approach to bring consistency to the new rules on the format and security features of ID and residence 
documents and promote cross-border cooperation. If national measures are not coordinated, they could create 
further  problems  (and  consequently  significant  costs) 
for  European  citizens,  national  authorities  or 
businesses/private sector.  

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines 
The options are grouped: (a) ID cards, (b) residence documents and (c) process, to reflect the specific measures 
needed to address the problems of each group. They cannot be compared with each other. 

Option 0: maintaining the status quo; 

Options ID: format and security of ID cards 

- ID SOFT): non-legislative measures related to ID cards (such as awareness-raising and training) 
- ID 1):  ID SOFT, plus setting minimum common requirements for ID format and security 
- ID 2): ID SOFT, plus ID 1), with a common format for ID cards, including mandatory fingerprints 
- ID3): ID SOFT with the possibility of issuing an EU ID card in addition to national ID cards 

Options RES: format and security of residence documents 

- RES SOFT): non-legislative measures related to residence documents 
- RES 1): RES SOFT plus the harmonisation of a limited amount of residence document data 

1 

 
 
-  RES  2):  RES  SOFT  plus  RES  1)  with  a  common  format  for  residence  documents  of  non-EU  family 
members 
- RES 3): RES SOFT plus RES 1) with a common format for all residence documents, 

Options PROCESS: process for issuing documents and sharing information between Member States 

- PROCESS SOFT): promote more and better options for requesting and receiving documents 
- PROCESS 1): PROCESS SOFT and the ability to issue ID cards through consular networks 

The preferred options are ID 1), RES 2) and PROCESS SOFT). 

Who supports which option? Maximum 7 lines 
Council Conclusions stress the importance of the security of ID cards and residence documents. Many national 
authorities  and  NGOs  support soft  law  measures  for  all  types  of documents  (all  SOFT  options).Some national 
authorities dealing with the issue of free movement (AT, CZ, HR, DK, NL, MT and PL) do not see the need for 
legislation, while the introduction of minimum features for ID cards (ID 1) is favoured by others (BG, CY, DE, EE, 
EL,  FI,  IE,  PT,  RO,  SI  and  SK).  Several  national  authorities  (CY,  DK,  EE,  FR,  EL  and  LU)  favour  at  least 
harmonising  residence  cards  for  non-EU  family  members  on  the  basis  of  the  uniform  format  for  residence 
permits (RES 2). A majority of EU citizens consulted support the wider EU harmonisation of national ID cards (ID 
2), and are in favour of overall harmonised residence documents (RES 3). 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines 
The  preferred  options  will  bring  direct  benefits  in  many  areas,  though  these  are  not  easily  quantifiable.  The 
evidence  available  shows  that  improved  acceptance  of  documents  and  enhanced  document  security  will  yield 
direct  and  recurrent  cost  savings  and  a  reduced  administrative  burden  for  citizens  and  their  family  members, 
public  administrations  (e.g.  border  guards  checking  documents)  and  public  and  private  service  operators  (e.g. 
airlines, health, banks and insurance and social security providers). 

The indirect benefits of the preferred options will include a reduction in document fraud and identity theft and a 
generally  improved  level  of  security  (reduction  of  crime,  fraud  and  terrorism)  within  the  EU  and  at  its  borders. 
Free movement of persons will also be facilitated, because improved documents will permit quicker, easier and 
more secure use of documents. 

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines 
Soft law measures are adaptable to Member States’ needs. 

The (one-off) compliance cost of phasing  in the upgraded documents will vary from Member  State to Member 
State,  depending  on  the  quality  of  the  documents  currently  issued.  In  most  cases,  costs  will  be  minimised  by 
aligning  the  phasing  in  with  the  natural  replacement  cycle  of  documents.  For  national  ID  cards  and  residence 
cards  for  non-EU  family  members,  Member  States  can  build  on  the  existing  infrastructure  (card  readers, 
document scanners, equipment to take and verify biometric  data) and production processes for  passports and 
residence permits. Significant additional administrative and regulatory costs are not expected. 

To  make  quicker  gains  on  security,  the  phasing  out  of  weaker  ID  cards  will  create  some  cost  in  a  number  of 
Member States. The phasing out of non-compliant residence cards for non-EU family members will also lead to 
some additional (one-off) costs. These costs will be in proportion to the speed of the phasing out. 

Whether compliance costs for new  documents will be transferred to citizens will depend on the Member State 
administrations. The preferred option will have no significant cost impact on businesses. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? Maximum 8 lines 
The  preferred  option  will  allow  businesses,  including  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises,  to  have  more  trust  in  the 
identification  documents  presented  by  potential  clients  from  other  Member  States  and  therefore  broaden  their 
business  opportunities.  This  is  of  particular  interest  to  smaller  enterprises  that  do  not  have  the  financial  and 
personal means to develop processes, expertise and staff training to handle identification documents correctly. 
The improvement in consistency with regard to the various types of documents will also offer some opportunities 
for card producers.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? Maximum 4 lines 

The  financial  impacts  will  vary  from  Member  State  to  Member  State,  depending  on  the  extent  of  the  changes 
needed  (compliance  cost  for  phasing-in)  and  how  quickly  these  improvements  are  implemented  (compliance 
cost for phasing-out). Costs will be minimised as the replacements are expected to mostly be synchronised with 

2 

 
 
the natural replacement cycle. 

All national administrations will eventually benefit from time savings in administration and public services.  

Will there be other significant impacts? Max 6 lines  

The preferred option will impact on fundamental rights, and in particular in relation to Article 7 of the Charter on 
respect  for  private  life  and  Art  8  on  the  right  to  the  protection  of  personal  data.  The  same  approach  will  be 
followed as for the EU legislation on biometric passports and residence permits. Specific sensitivities regarding 
the collection of biometric data of minors will be taken into account. The preferred option will ensure safeguards 
and  guarantee  the  data  subject's  right  applicable  under  the  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  including  the 
right to effective remedy. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed? Maximum 4 lines  
In addition to regular monitoring, it is proposed that the Commission will submit an implementation report to the 
European Parliament and the Council 3 years after the entry into application of the legislative measures.  

3