COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on information exchange between law enforcement authorities of Member States, repealing Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA
Date: 2021-12-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, area of freedom, security and justice, criminal law, disclosure of information, exchange of information, fight against crime, judicial cooperation, offence, organised crime, terrorism

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.12.2021  SWD(2021) 377 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on information exchange between law enforcement authorities of Member States, repealing Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA {COM(2021) 782 final} - {SEC(2021) 420 final} - {SWD(2021) 374 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment on a proposal to modernise existing intra-EU law enforcement cooperation by 
creating an EU police cooperation code on information exchange and communication 

Executive Summary Sheet 

Why? What is the problem being addressed?  

A. Need for action 

Security and cross-border crime (including tax crimes) are, by definition, an international issue. As mentioned in 
the  2020  EU  Security  Union  Strategy,  Europe  faces  a  security  landscape  in  flux,  with  evolving  and 
increasingly  complex  security  threats.  These  threats  spread  across  borders  and  manifest  themselves  in 
organised  crime  groups  that  engage  in  a  wide  range  of  criminal  activities.  Even  a  seemingly  local  crime  may 
have  links  to  other  offences  committed  across  Europe  by  the  same  perpetrators.  Furthermore,  the  growing 
intra-EU mobility creates additional challenges for the prevention and fight against all forms of criminal threats. 

The  rapidly  evolving  criminal  landscape  and  the  increased  mobility  of  people  suggests  that  cross-border 
cooperation between law enforcement authorities in the EU will be crucial to tackle criminal offences, and allow 
EU citizens to safely enjoy their rights of free movement in the future.  

However, there are still borders and obstacles for data exchange between law enforcement, which leads to blind 
spots and  loopholes for numerous criminals and terrorists that act in more than  one Member  State. Given  the 
cross-border nature of fighting crime and enhancing security, Member States must rely on one another to close 
the information gap. 

Law enforcement authorities in the EU cooperate and exchange information, notably  based on the Framework 
Decision (2006/960/JHA) on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement 
authorities  of  the  Member  States  of  the  EU  (Swedish  Framework  Decision  –  SFD),  but  there  are  important 
shortcomings.  

Law  enforcement  authorities  do  not  effectively  nor  efficiently  exchange  information  with  their  partners  in 
other Member States because of three legal, structural and technical problems. 

1)  Rules at national level impede the effective and efficient flow of information. Indeed, the 2006 Swedish 
Framework  Decision  is  not  fully  implemented  preventing  law  enforcement  authorities  from  other  Member 
States from receiving such information in an effective and efficient way; 

2)  Structures at national level are not always set up and equipped in a sufficiently efficient and effective 
manner.  Indeed,  Member  States  do  not  always  have  the  necessary  structures  in  place  to  receive 
information requests from other Member States, channel them to the right authorities at national level, and 
provide the requested information accordingly; 

3)  The free choice of communication channel(s) between Member States causes recurrent duplication 
of requests. Indeed, Member States' law enforcement authorities use a variety of different channels to send 
information  request  to  other  Member  States  and  respond  to  them,  which  hampers  effective  and  efficient 
exchange of information.  

These  three  problems  are  interlinked.  All  three  issues  raise  important  policy  choices  that  require  a  detailed 
assessment of the problem drivers, the related objectives, available policy options and their impact. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve?  

This  initiative  is  expected  to  fundamentally  support  the  Member  States  in  fullfilling  their  commitment  to  law 
enforcement  cooperation.  It  responds  to  pressing  operational  needs  and  calls  from  the  Council  to  consider 
"consolidating  the  EU  legal  framework  to  further  strengthen  cross-border  law  enforcement  cooperation,  to 
support  the  development  of  smooth  and  swift  information  exchange  and  further  development  of  relevant 
structures and platforms".  

The initiative seeks to achieve the following objectives: 

1)  Objective I: To facilitate equivalent access for law enforcement authorities to information held in another 
Member  State  (similar  to  the  access  granted  to  information  within  a  Member  State),  while  complying  with 
fundamental rights and data protection requirements;  

2)  Objective  II:  To  ensure  that  all  Member  States  have  an  effective  functioning  Single  Point  of  Contact 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(SPOC),  including  when  a  judicial  authorisation  is  required  to  provide  the  data  upon  request  of  another 
Member  State,  and  ensuring  its  effective  cooperation  with  Police  and  Customs  Cooperation  Centres 
(PCCCs); 

3)  Objective III: To establish a mandatory default communication channel for law enforcement information 

exchange between Member States (where relevant). 

What is the value added of action at the EU level?  

EU action is expected to bring benefit for the entire EU with a ripple effect on Schengen Associated Countries, 
by reinforcing the overall security and trust among the Member States. In doing so, it is expected to  support the 
Schengen core principle (an area without controls at internal borders). 

Common EU level rules, minimum standards and requirements will highly enhance  information flow, in line 
with high-level data security and data protection standards.  

Additionally, common standards allow for certain level of automation in information exchange workflows thereby 
releasing law enforcement officers from certain labour-intensive/time-consuming manual activities. 

B. Solutions 

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

A  number  of  legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered.  Following  a  pre-selection,  some  options  were 
quickly discarded. The other policy options have been assessed in full detail: 

1)  Policy option addressing objective I: (‘facilitate the equivalent access to information’) 

  policy option 1.1: Legal proposal updating the 2006 Swedish Framework Decision (SFD) to ensure 
its  alignment  with  the  2016  Law  Enforcement  Data  Protection  Directive  +  flanking  soft  measures 
(training, Commission guidance); 

  policy option 1.2: Option 1.1 + simplification in the use of the SFD + improve clarity on the national 

data sets available for possible exchange; 

  policy option 1.3: Option 1.2 + provisions ensuring compliance with deadline requirements by which 
data  is  to  be  made  available  to  another  Member  State  (including  when  a  judicial  authorisation  is 
required). 

2)  Policy options addressing objective II: (‘ensure that all Member States have an effective functioning Single 
Point of Contact (SPOC), including when a judicial authorisation is required to provide the data upon request 
of  another  Member  State,  and  ensuring  its  effective  cooperation  with  Police  and  Customs  Cooperation 
Centres (PCCCs’)) 

  policy option 2.1: Continue with Council non-binding guidelines on national Single Points of Contact 

+ flanking soft measures (training, financial support, guidance); 

  policy  option  2.2:  Approximation  of  minimum  standards  on  the  composition  of  the  Single  Points  of 
Contact  (including  the  mandatory  presence  of  a  judicial  authority),  its  functions,  staffing  and  IT 
systems,  and  in  its  cooperation  with  regional  structures  such  as  Police  and  Customs  Cooperation 
Centres + flanking soft measures (training, financial support, guidance); 

  policy  option  2.3:  harmonisation  of  rules  on  the  composition  of  the  Single  Points  of  Contact 
(including the mandatory presence of a judicial authority), its functions, staffing and IT systems, and 
its cooperation with regional structures such as Police and Customs Cooperation Centres + flanking 
soft measures (training, financial support, guidance). 

3)  Policy  options  addressing  objective  III:  (‘establish  a  mandatory  default  communication  channel  for  law 

enforcement information exchange between Member States (where relevant)' 

  policy  option  3.1:  Continue  with  Council  non-binding  guidelines  and  Recommendations  to  put 
Europol  in  copy  when  using  SIENA1  in  cases  within  Europol'  mandate  +  flanking  soft  measures 

1 Europol's "Secure Information Exchange Network Application". 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(training, financial support); 

  policy option 3.2: Obligation to use the same communication channel for the same purpose (making 
of  Europol  SIENA  the  preferred  channel  where  relevant)  +  obligation  to  put  Europol  in  copy  when 
using SIENA in cases within Europol's mandate + Flanking soft measures ( as in option 3.1); 

  policy  option  3.3:  obligation  to  use  SIENA  by  default  for  all  bilateral  information  exchange  (unless 
otherwise regulated by EU law) + obligation to put Europol in copy when in cases within  Europol's 
mandate,  both  after  the  end  of  a  transition  period  and  with  Internal  Security  Fund  support  for  the 
SIENA roll-out + flanking measures (as in policy option 3.1) . 

Following  a  detailed  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  the  main  policy  options,  the  package  of  preferred  policy 
options consists of policy option 1.3, policy option 2.2 and policy option 3.3. 

Who supports which option?  

Stakeholders  are  generally  supportive  of  the  development  of  smooth  and  timely  information  exchange  and  for 
further development of relevant structures and platforms. 

Member  States  are  expected  to  support  most  of  the  measures  envisaged  under  the  preferred  option.  At  the 
same  time,  Member  States  are  conscious  of  the  importance  of  their  national  sovereignty  in  the  area  of  law 
enforcement  from  an  operational  and  procedural  perspective.  Positive  opinions  expressed  at  expert  level  may 
not be further shared at political level. 

The  main  likely  point  of  debate  concerns  the  option  3.3  (making  of  Europol  SIENA  the  mandatory  channel  of 
communication  between  Member  States  (unless  otherwise  ruled  by  EU  law).  Yet,  this  option  has  also  been 
defended  by  Member  States  at  Council:  "applying  SIENA  as  the  default  communication  channel  would  add  to 
the  streamlining  of  law  enforcement  information  exchange,  and  increase  the  level  of  security  in  the  context  of 
police cooperation in the Union. By the same token, it would enable that efforts be focused on the development 
of  a  single  instead  of  numerous  solutions,  thus  fostering  the  objective  of  reaching  enhanced  EU  internal 
security".  

The  European  Parliament  is  expected  to  verify  the  existence  of  strong  data  protection  safeguards.  Indeed, 
discussions  with  all  stakeholders  showed  the  importance  of  appropriate  safeguards  to  ensure  the  respect  of 
Fundamental Rights, and in particular the right to the protection of personal data.  

What are the benefits of the preferred options (if any, otherwise main ones)?  

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

The preferred policy option, a game changer, would respond effectively to the identified problems while stepping 
up  Europol'  support  to  member  States,  with  the  final  objective  of  preventing,  detecting  and  investigating 
criminal offences, in full compliance with fundamental rights. 

The  ultimate  beneficiaries  of  the  preferred  option  are  the  citizens.  They  will  directly  and  indirectly  benefit 
from better crime fighting and lower crime rates. In terms of efficiency, the main beneficiaries are national law 
enforcement authorities.  

What are the costs of the preferred options (if any, otherwise main ones)?  

The  preferred  policy  option  requires  investments  at  both  EU  and  Member  States'  level.  These  costs  would 
essentially concerns IT upgrades and training. These cost would vary significantly from one Member State to the 
next  depending  on  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  their  national  Single  Point  of  Contact  and  Police  and 
Customs Cooperation Centres (if any).  

The  preferred  policy  option  provides  for  efficient  solutions  to  challenges  which  would  otherwise  have  to  be 
addressed at higher costs, show poor compatibility or which would be less efficient. 

Some of the policy options are however difficult to quantify. According to Europol data, the costs associated with 
the integration of Europol SIENA in 20 Member States Case Management Systems (CMS) and the development 
of  CMSs  in  10  Member  States  are  estimated  to  EUR  2.5  million  (one-time  investment  needed).  Efficiency 
benefits would offset these costs (fewer resources needed for case management, i.e. more resources spent on 
"solving cases"). 

The preferred policy option does not contain regulatory obligations for citizens/consumers, and therefore do not 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
create additional costs for these stakeholders either. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?  

The  preferred  policy  option  could  have  a  small  positive  impact  on  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  given 
increased demand for IT products and services.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

As  mentionned  above,  the  preferred  policy  option  requires  investments  at  Member  States'  level.  These  costs 
would essentially concerns IT upgrades and training. Some of the policy options are however difficult to quantify. 
These  cost  would  vary  significantly  from  one  Member  State  to  the  next  depending  on  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness of their national Single Point of Contact and Police and Customs Coopepration Centres (if any). 

According  to  Europol  data,  the  costs  of  developing  a  Case  Management  System  at  national  level  could  be  of 
EUR 150.000 (one-off) per Member State. Efficiency benefits would offset these costs (fewer resources needed 
for case management, i.e. more resources spent on "solving cases"). 

The necessary IT upgrades in both SPOCs and  PCCCs could amount to a maximum grand total of EUR  11,5 
million (EUR 2.5 million for SPOCs + EUR 9 million for PCCCs). 

These costs (one-off investment), deemed acceptable, are  proportionate  to the identified  problem and do not 
go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  the  specific  objective.  The  EU  Internal  Security  Fund  will  provide 
support (essentially via national programmes).  

Will there be other significant impacts?  

The  preferred  policy  option  empowers  Member  States  national  and  regional  information  hubs  with  a  view  to  
more effectively and efficiently access and share existing data.  

The  preferred  policy  option  also  ensures  the  full  alignment  of  a  new  Directive  on  information  exchange  and 
communication  with  the  2016  Data  Protection  Law  Enforcement  Directive.  Such  alignment  ensures  an  explicit 
compliance  with  Fundamental  Rights  which  is  not  currently  the  case  with  the  2006  Swedish  Framework 
Decision.  

The  preferred  policy  option  meets  an  objective  of  general  interest  and  is  strictly  limited  to  what  is 
necessary and proportionate to achieve such objective. 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

D. Follow-up 

[Two] years after the transpositon deadline, and every [four] years thereafter, the Commission should submit to 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  two  reports.  The  first,  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Member 
States  have  taken  the  necessary  measures  to  comply  with  this  Directive;  the  second,  assessing  its  results 
against  its  objectives  and  the  continuing  validity  of  the  underlying  rationale  and  any  implications  for  future 
options. 

4