Informal Meeting of the Justice and
Home Affairs Ministers,
Amsterdam 25-26 January 2016
Discussion Paper on the European Forensic
Science Area 2020

Lunch meeting Ministers of Justice,
26 January 2016
Introduction
Forensic evidence is increasingly important in
criminal matters. Since crime goes beyond
national borders, there is also a growing need for
Member States to exchange forensic evidence. At
present it is all too often the case that public
prosecutors and judges are unable to use forensic
evidence from another Member State because
they do not have sufficient knowledge about how
the investigation was carried out or whether it
was up to standards. The exchange of forensic
evidence could be streamlined by creating a
European Forensic Science Area. This would be an
area in which the procedures of the providers of
forensic services in the Member States would be
better coordinated and the quality of
investigations would be brought to an acceptable
level. This will build confidence and encourage
cooperation in the field of law enforcement and
prosecution.
On 13 and 14 December 2011 the Council (Justice
and Home Affairs) approved conclusions
regarding the realisation of a European Forensic
Science Area by 20201. In its conclusions of 15 and
16 June 20152 on the renewed Internal Security
Strategy 2015-2020, the Council (Justice and
Home Affairs) emphasised the importance of a
European Forensic Area for law enforcement and
prosecution: ‘Law enforcement and judicial authorities
must be confident that the forensic data they rely on is of
high quality, including if the data comes from another
Member State. It is therefore important to ensure that

1 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/
pressdata/en/jha/126875.pdf
2 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/
basic-documents/docs/eu_agenda_on_security_en.pdf

the forensic data exchanged through information
exchange systems, such as the Prüm framework for
fingerprints and DNA profiles, can be effectively used in
court.’
Notwithstanding differences of opinion, however,
about the way in which a European Forensic
Science Area can best be achieved, replies to a
questionnaire issued in June 2015 show that
Member States continue to underline the
importance thereof.
The demand for forensic research continues to
grow, especially with the growing power of
technology. The available budgets for forensic
research are nevertheless under pressure in many
Member States.
The aim of creating and developing a European
Forensic Science Area is to enable the mutual
exchange of knowledge and expertise. In the
longer term it may even be possible for the
Member States to share capacities: It would then
no longer be necessary for each Member State to
have its own top-level expertise ‘in-house’ for
every area of forensic expertise; as a
consequence, the financial and technical burdens
could be shared between them.
In order to cooperate well in the field of forensics
it is essential to invest in quality. In this regard an
important contribution could be made by the
objectives stated in the Council’s Conclusions of
2011 such as the accreditation of forensic science
institutes, respect for minimum competence
criteria for forensic science personnel, and
minimum quality standards for scene-of-crime
investigations.

In the short term an investment in quality could
focus on the following objectives:
–– developing best practice manuals and
proficiency tests3 for all areas of forensic
expertise;
–– developing courses to increase forensic
awareness among the law enforcement and
justice community;
–– encouraging the exchange of forensic data
from databases.
The knowledge and expertise built up by the
European Network of Forensic Science Institutes
(ENFSI) could be put to good use in achieving
these objectives. Several countries have already
indicated in their replies to the questionnaire that
they envisage a greater role for ENFSI.
Cooperation with ENFSI could therefore be
encouraged. Cooperation could also be sought
with CEPOL (the European Police College) in
relation to forensic awareness courses.
Discussion
The ministers will be asked to answer4 the
following questions concerning the further
development of the European Forensic
Science Area:
1. The exchange of DNA profiles and fingerprints in the EU by linking databases has been
very successful. Would you also like to
encourage the linking of national databases
covering other forensic data?
2. If so, for which areas of expertise
(e.g. weapons and ammunition or drugs)?
3. In your opinion, will the development and
use of best practice manuals, proficiency tests
and forensic awareness courses contribute to
the European Forensic Science Area in the
short term?
4. If so, which issues should have the highest
priority?

3 Proficiency testing determines the performance of
individual laboratories for specific tests or measurements
and is used to monitor laboratories’ continuing
performance.
4 As mentioned in the cover note, you are kindly invited to
share (an outline of) your Minister’s response with the
Presidency in advance, which will support us in focusing the
discussion in the meeting on those points which require the
most attention.

5. Do you think that ENFSI should be given a
greater role in the further elaboration of the
details of some of the Council’s Conclusions
of 2011 by being a European centre of
expertise in the field of forensic research and
could it contribute to the gradual realisation
of the objectives set out in those
conclusions?
6. If not, why not? If so, do you have any
suggestions on ENFSI’s role of governance?