Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Information Sharing and Data Protection in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice pp 321–370Cite as

Chapter C Cooperation and Data Exchange of the AFSJ Actors and Their Compliance with the European Data Protection Standard

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1456 Accesses

Abstract

As has already been established in the present contribution, the data protection frameworks of the AFSJ actors show several shortcomings and inconsistencies. Having this in mind, it is now worth pointing out that the data processing by these actors is not limited to the actors themselves; most of them are additionally interlinked with each other. Consequently, it is interesting to evaluate how and if at all, personal data are protected when it comes to the cooperation and the exchange of personal data amongst the different AFSJ actors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the JITs see Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009 prepared by Europol and Eurojust, Council doc. 13598/09; Rijken (2006); Gualtiere (2007); for Europol’s and Eurojust’s participation, see de Buck (2007); Helmberg (2007).

  2. 2.

    See annual report of Eurojust 2008, p. 41, http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm (accessed February 2011); in 2008, Eurojust was involved in 12 of Europol’s analysis work files.

  3. 3.

    See annual report of Eurojust 2008, p. 41, http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press_annual.htm (accessed February 2011); in 2008, Eurojust received 140 messages from Europol via this channel.

  4. 4.

    Compare recital 9 and Articles 5 (1) (d), 5 (5), 6, 8 (7) c and 54 Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office, OJ 2009, L-121/37 as well as Articles 6 (b) (iv), 9 (f), 12 (2) (d), 13 (2) (5) and 25 (a) (2) Eurojust Decision.

  5. 5.

    Article 6 Europol Decision and Article 7 (4) Eurojust Decision.

  6. 6.

    Lopes da Mota (2009).

  7. 7.

    Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, p. 10 and Eurojust Decision, Article 9 (f).

  8. 8.

    Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, p. 10; see also Article 6 (1) Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office, OJ 2009, L-121/37.

  9. 9.

    Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, pp. 26 and 27 suggesting a model agreement for the participation of Europol, Eurojust or OLAF.

  10. 10.

    Article 6 (1) Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office, OJ 2009, L-121/37 (emphasis added); with regard to this problem, see de Buck (2007), pp. 260–261.

  11. 11.

    Council Act of 29 May 2000 establishing in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, OJ 2000, C-197/1, Article 13; to the initiation of the JIT project, see Horvatis and de Buck (2007), and Rijken and Vermeulen (2006).

  12. 12.

    Article 1 and recital (9) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams, OJ 2002, L-162/1 and Article 13 Council Act of 29 May 2000 establishing in accordance with Article 34 Treaty on European Union the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, OJ 2000, C 197/1.

  13. 13.

    Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09.

  14. 14.

    Explanatory report on the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, OJ 2000, C-379/7, Article 13 and Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, p. 6.

  15. 15.

    Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, pp. 9 and 10.

  16. 16.

    A model agreement can be found in Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, pp. 26–27.

  17. 17.

    Article 1 (10) (b) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams, OJ 2002, L-162/1.

  18. 18.

    Ibid, Article 1 (10) (a)–(d).

  19. 19.

    See the example of a model agreement in Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, p. 24.

  20. 20.

    To this problem, see Rijken and Vermeulen (2006), pp. 110–118; Mitsilegas (2009), p. 171.

  21. 21.

    Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office, OJ 2009, L-121/37, Article 6 (4).

  22. 22.

    De Buck (2007), p. 263.

  23. 23.

    Information from third States can be obtained by using the so called Virtual Private Network (VPN) connecting Europol’s national units and offering encrypted lines with third States, see de Buck (2007), p. 263.

  24. 24.

    Compare Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office, OJ 2009, L-121/37, Article 6 (4) and (5).

  25. 25.

    Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, p. 10.

  26. 26.

    To the general data protection problems arising out of JITs, see Gusy (2008), in particular pp. 274–278.

  27. 27.

    Agreement between Europol and Eurojust which entered into force the 1 January 2010, Articles 7 (2) and 8 (2), in the following: Europol-Eurojust Agreement; this Agreement replaced the Agreement between Europol and Eurojust of 9 June 2004.

  28. 28.

    EDPS opinion on the Council Decision concerning the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Decision 2002/187/JHA of 5 December 2008, OJ 2008, C 310/1, p. 6, para 34.

  29. 29.

    Articles 7 (2) and 8 (2), Europol-Eurojust Agreement.

  30. 30.

    Ibid, Article 8 (3).

  31. 31.

    Eurojust’s mandate refers to a list of crimes for which Europol is responsible and which is laid down in Article 3 Europol Decision, compare Article 4 (1) Eurojust Decision.

  32. 32.

    Article 9 (2) Europol-Eurojust Agreement.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, Article 11 (2).

  34. 34.

    Ibid, Article 14 (6).

  35. 35.

    Article 27 (1) Eurojust Decision.

  36. 36.

    Article 18 (5) Europol-Eurojust Agreement.

  37. 37.

    Compare Chap. B II 1 b bb.

  38. 38.

    Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, admissibility decision of 29 June 2006, paras 42–43 and 123–129, see Chap. A II 1 d cc (2); Article 14 (4) Europol-Eurojust Agreement however lays down that the transmission of data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs, or concerning health and sexual life shall be restricted to absolutely necessary cases and that such data shall only be transmitted in addition to other data.

  39. 39.

    Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, admissibility decision of 29 June 2006, para 121.

  40. 40.

    According to Article 18 (3) Europol-Eurojust Agreement, transmitted data shall be deleted when they are no longer necessary for the purpose for which they were transferred or when they are not necessary for the tasks of the receiving party or when no decision has been taken within 3 month after receipt (Article 16 (4)); a retention review must take place within the first three years of storage and when the storage exceeds three years, an annual review has to be implemented, see Article 18 (5) Europol-Eurojust Agreement.

  41. 41.

    Eurojust registered 1372 new cases in 2009, compare Eurojust annual report 2009, p. 50 and Europol had 88419 objects stored in the EIS and initiated 8377 cases in 2008, compare Europol annual report 2008, pp. 33–35.

  42. 42.

    Article 22 Europol-Eurojust Agreement.

  43. 43.

    Joint Investigation Teams Manual of 23 September 2009, Council Doc. 13598/09, pp. 9, 10 and 22.

  44. 44.

    Compare Commission Decision 1999/352/EC of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ 1999, L-136/20 and Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ 1999, L-136/31; Article 2 (6) Commission Decision 199/352 broadly regulates that “the office shall be in direct contact with the police and judicial authorities” and Article 1 (2) Regulation 1073/1999 only refers to “assistance” from the Commission to the Member States in organising close cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States.

  45. 45.

    Second Protocol, drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the treaty on European Union, to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests – Joint Declaration on Article 13 (2) – Commission Declaration on Article 7, OJ 1997, C-221/12.

  46. 46.

    De Moor (2009), p. 97; see also: Riegel (2009).

  47. 47.

    Administrative Arrangement between the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 8 April 2004, http://www.europol.europa.eu/legal/agreements/Agreements/52153.pdf (accessed February 2011).

  48. 48.

    Council Document 13424/2/06, rev. 2, ENFOCUSTOM 64, Action Plan to implement the Strategy for Customs Co-operation in the Third Pillar and Council Document 11216/1/08, rev 1 EUROPOL 63 on customs cooperation at Europol, section 3.1.2.1.

  49. 49.

    OLAF annual report 2009, ninth activity report for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008, section 4.6.2, p. 59.

  50. 50.

    Article 24 (1) Europol Decision.

  51. 51.

    Compare Chap. B II 3 c; Regulation 45/2001 is restricted in scope and refers only to personal data transfer between Community bodies which represent bodies established under the former first pillar and does not include Europol or Eurojust.

  52. 52.

    Article 10 Regulation 1073/1999 refers to the forwarding obtained in course of internal investigations to the bodies, offices and agencies concerned by the investigation, however this provision does not take the data exchange in the framework of criminal or judicial cooperation into account.

  53. 53.

    Article 30 (4) Regulation 766/2008.

  54. 54.

    Cooperation with international or regional organisations is additionally mentioned in Article 29 (3) Regulation 766/2008.

  55. 55.

    Strategic co-operation agreement between the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union and the European Police Office of 28 March 2008; in the following: Europol-Frontex Agreement of 28 March 2008.

  56. 56.

    Compare Chap. B II 4 b and House of Lords Europol report, European Union Committee, 29th report of session 2007–2008, “Europol: coordinating the fight against serious and organised crime”, published 12 November 2008, p. 80 as well as Final report of COWI (European consulting group) of January 2009 preparing an external evaluation of Frontex provided for in Article 33 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing Frontex, p. 48, available at: http://www.frontex.europa.eu/specific_documents/other/ (accessed February 2011).

  57. 57.

    The legal basis of the proposal is Article 74 and 77 (1) (b) and (c) TFEU by using the codecision procedure.

  58. 58.

    Compare Article 13 of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) of 24 February 2010, COM(2010) 61 final.

  59. 59.

    According to Article 2 Europol-Frontex Agreement: 1. “Strategic information” includes, but is not limited to: a. enforcement actions that might be useful to suppress offences and improve the integrated border management of the Member States of the European Union; b. new methods used in committing offences, in particular, those threatening the security of external borders or facilitating illegal immigration; c. trends and developments in the methods used to commit offences; d. observations and findings resulting from the successful application of new enforcement aids and techniques; e. routes and changes in routes used by smugglers, illegal immigrants or those involved in illicit trafficking offences covered by this agreement; f. prevention strategies and methods for management to select law enforcement priorities; g. threat assessments, risk analysis and crime situation reports. 2. “Technical information” includes, but is not limited to: a. means of strengthening administrative and enforcement structures in the fields covered by this agreement; b. police working methods as well as investigative procedures and results; c. methods of training the officials concerned; d. criminal intelligence analytical methods; e. identification of law enforcement expertise.

  60. 60.

    Article 1 Europol-Frontex Agreement of 28 March 2008.

  61. 61.

    Article 5 para 4, 5 and 7 Europol-Frontex agreement.

  62. 62.

    Article 5 para 3 et 8 Europol-Frontex agreement.

  63. 63.

    Final report of COWI (European consulting group) of January 2009 preparing an external evaluation of Frontex provided for in Article 33 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing Frontex, p. 48, available at: http://www.frontex.europa.eu/specific_documents/other/ (accessed February 2011) and House of Lords Europol report, European Union Committee, 29th report of session 2007–2008, “Europol: coordinating the fight against serious and organised crime”, published 12 November 2008, p. 80.

  64. 64.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) of 24 February 2010, COM(2010) 61 final and Council document 2010/0039 (COD), 8121/10, proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) 29 March 2010.

  65. 65.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) of 24 February 2010, COM(2010) 61 final, Article 2; Eurosur is the planned European Border Surveillance System; for more details, see Commission staff working paper, report on progress made in developing the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) of 24 September 2009, Sec(2009), 1265 final; An analysis of the Commission communications on future development of Frontex and the creation of a European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR), briefing paper from policy department C, citizens’ rights and constitutional affairs, civil liberties, justice and home affairs, Directorate General internal policies of the Union of June 2008, PE 408.295.

  66. 66.

    Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) of 24 February 2010, p. 34.

  67. 67.

    Compare Chap. B II 4 d and Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) of 17 May 2010.

  68. 68.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) of 24 February 2010, COM(2010) 61 final, Article 13.

  69. 69.

    Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) of 17 May 2010, p. 7.

  70. 70.

    See also Frontex priorities in its “Programme of Work 2010”, which demand an intensified cooperation between Europol and Frontex as well as between Frontex and agencies such as Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA), the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), the European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC), and with the European Asylum Support Office that will be set up in 2010, as well as inter-institutional cooperation in particular with UNODC and OSCE, p. 116, http://www.frontex.europa.eu/gfx/frontex/files/justyna/pow2010.pdf (accessed February 2011).

  71. 71.

    House of Lords Eurojust report, European Union Committee, 23th report of session 2003–04, “Judicial cooperation in the EU: the role of Eurojust”, published 21 July 2004, p. 27–28; see also: Quirke (2010), in particular pp. 100–101; to the relation between Eurojust and OLAF, compare Fawzy (2005), pp. 102–113.

  72. 72.

    Memorandum of Understanding between Eurojust and OLAF of 4 April 2003, http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/press_room/pr/2003/memo_en.pdf (accessed February 2011).

  73. 73.

    Section I 4 b.

  74. 74.

    Article 86 (1) TFEU.

  75. 75.

    Practical Agreement on arrangements of cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF of 24 September 2008, point 9 (1).

  76. 76.

    See Sect. I 1 a.

  77. 77.

    Vervaele (2008), p. 184.

  78. 78.

    Lopes da Mota (2009), p. 88; compare also Article 13a Eurojust Decision.

  79. 79.

    Articles 9f and 25a (2) Eurojust Decision.

  80. 80.

    Lopes da Mota (2009).

  81. 81.

    Ibid, p. 89.

  82. 82.

    The exchange of case summaries should be regarded as a request to the other party to “examine the necessity for close cooperation on a specific case”, but the requested party can decide not to cooperate; see Practical Agreement on arrangements of cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF of 24 September 2008, point 5.

  83. 83.

    Practical Agreement on arrangements of cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF of 24 September 2008, point 6.

  84. 84.

    Ibid, points 6 (3) and (4).

  85. 85.

    Ibid, points 11 (2) and 15 (4).

  86. 86.

    Compare Chap. B II 3 c.

  87. 87.

    Practical Agreement on arrangements of cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF of 24 September 2008, point 14.

  88. 88.

    Ibid, points 15 (1).

  89. 89.

    Ibid, points 15 (3).

  90. 90.

    Compare Chap. B II 3 d.

  91. 91.

    Compare Chap. B II 3 c and d.

  92. 92.

    See Chap. B II 2 c.

  93. 93.

    Practical Agreement on arrangements of cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF of 24 September 2008, point 18 (1).

  94. 94.

    Eurojust work programme 2010, p. 12, para 7; Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 23 October 2007 on the role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in the European Union, COM(2007) 644 final, p. 9, para 2.4; Note from the General Secretariat to the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security (COSI), final report on the cooperation between JHA agencies, Council doc. 8387/10 of 9 April 2010, para 1.4, p. 6.

  95. 95.

    House of Lords Europol report, European Union Committee, 29th report of session 2007–2008, “Europol: coordinating the fight against serious and organised crime”, published 12 November 2008, p. 80; Final report of COWI (European consulting group) of January 2009 preparing an external evaluation of Frontex provided for in Article 33 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing Frontex, p. 48, available at: http://www.frontex.europa.eu/specific_documents/other/ (accessed February 2011).

  96. 96.

    See above Chap. B III 1.

  97. 97.

    Article 1 Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and SIS II Decision 2007/533; Article 3 Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office, OJ 2009, L-121/37.

  98. 98.

    Compare Chap. B II 1 b.

  99. 99.

    Council Decision 2005/211/JHA of 24 February 2005 concerning the introduction of some new functions for the Schengen Information System, including in the fight against terrorism, OJ 2005, L-68/44, Article 1 referring to Articles 95, 99 and 100 Schengen Convention, OJ 2000, L-239/19 (persons wanted for extradition, persons or vehicles placed under surveillance or subjected to specific checks as well as to objects sought for the purpose of seizure or use in criminal proceedings).

  100. 100.

    Article 43 SIS II Decision 2007/533; the word “computerised” is missing in SIS II Decision 2007/533.

  101. 101.

    Article 21 Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office, OJ 2009, L-121/37.

  102. 102.

    See Chap. B II 1 e.

  103. 103.

    Article 41 (2) and (3) SIS II Decision 2007/533.

  104. 104.

    Ibid, Article 41 (3).

  105. 105.

    Ibid.

  106. 106.

    Ibid, Article 41 (5) (b).

  107. 107.

    Compare criticism, Chap. B II 1 d bb.

  108. 108.

    Compare Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, admissibility decision of 29 June 2006; Chap. A II 1 c bb (2) and A II 1 d cc (2).

  109. 109.

    See the different tasks of Europol in Chap. B II 1 a–c.

  110. 110.

    Opinion of the EDPS on the SIS II proposals, OJ 2006, C-91/38, point 4.2.3.

  111. 111.

    Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, admissibility decision of 29 June 2006, para 121; compare Chap. A II 1 c bb (2) and A II 1 d cc (2).

  112. 112.

    Compare Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, admissibility decision of 29 June 2006, para 79.

  113. 113.

    Opinion of the EDPS on the SIS II proposals OJ 2006, C-91/38, point 4.2.2.

  114. 114.

    Compare Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, admissibility decision of 29 June 2006, para 135; Chap. A II 1 d cc (2).

  115. 115.

    Article 3 (1) VIS Regulation 767/2008, OJ 2008, L-218/60.

  116. 116.

    Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  117. 117.

    Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the development of the Visa Information System (VIS) in 2008, of 15 September 2009, COM(2009) 473 final, p. 4.

  118. 118.

    Case C-482/08, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Council of the European Union, judgment of 26 October 2010.

  119. 119.

    Ibid.

  120. 120.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, OJ 2002, L-164/3.

  121. 121.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ 2002, L-190/1.

  122. 122.

    Corresponding to Article 5 (1) (a) Europol Decision.

  123. 123.

    Mainly corresponding to Article 14 Europol Decision.

  124. 124.

    Today corresponding to Article 5 (1) (a) Europol Decision.

  125. 125.

    Article 10 Europol Convention now corresponds to Article 14 Europol Decision.

  126. 126.

    Article 7 (1) Council Decision 2008/633/JHA, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  127. 127.

    Compare Article 14 (4) Europol Decision.

  128. 128.

    Compare Chap. B II 1.

  129. 129.

    Article 5 (1) Council Decision 2008/633, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  130. 130.

    Ibid, Article 7 (2).

  131. 131.

    Surname, surname at birth (former surname(s)); first name(s); sex; date, place and country of birth; current nationality and nationality at birth; type and number of the travel document, the authority which issued it and the date of issue and of expiry; main destination and duration of the intended stay; purpose of travel; intended date of arrival and departure; intended border of first entry or transit route; residence; fingerprints; type of visa and the number of the visa sticker; details of the person issuing an invitation and/or liable to pay the applicant’s subsistence costs during the stay.

  132. 132.

    Articles 5 (2) and (3) Council Decision 2008/633, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  133. 133.

    Ibid, Articles 3 (3) and 7 (3).

  134. 134.

    Article 4 (1) Council Decision 2008/633, OJ 2008, L-218/129; paragraph 2 of Article 4 Council Decision 2008/633 provides for an exception: “In an exceptional case of urgency, the central access point(s) may receive written, electronic or oral requests. In such cases, the central access point(s) shall process the request immediately and only verify ex-post whether all the conditions of Article 5 are fulfilled, including whether an exceptional case of urgency existed. The ex-post verification shall take place without undue delay after the processing of the request”.

  135. 135.

    Today corresponding to Article 5 (1) (a) Europol Decision and Article 10 Europol Convention now corresponds to Article 14 Europol Decision.

  136. 136.

    Report of 21 Mai 2007 of the European Parliament on the on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by the authorities of the Member States responsible for internal security and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (COM(2005)600final – 2005/0323(CNS)), Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home affairs, rapporteur: Sarah Ludford, pp. 7–8, para (7), and proposal for a Council Decision of 24 November 2005 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by the authorities of the Member States responsible for internal security and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (COM(2005)600final – 2005/0323(CNS)), p. 5.

  137. 137.

    Article 7 (3) Council Decision 2008/633, OJ 2008, L-218/129; see also: Opinion of the EDPS on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by the authorities of the Member States responsible for internal security and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (COM(2005)final), OJ 2006, C-97/6.

  138. 138.

    Article 7 (4) Council Decision 2008/633, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  139. 139.

    Ibid, Article 6.

  140. 140.

    Section II 1.

  141. 141.

    For those Member States which have ratified it, the Additional Protocol of 8 November 2001 to Convention No. 108 should also be taken into account.

  142. 142.

    Recital (9) Council Decision 2008/633/JHA, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  143. 143.

    Ibid, Article 8 (1) and recital (9).

  144. 144.

    Opinion of the EDPS on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by the authorities of the Member States responsible for internal security and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (COM(2005)final), OJ 2006, C-97/6, point 2.5 (a).

  145. 145.

    Compare Articles 13 Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, OJ 2008, L-350/60.

  146. 146.

    Article 8 (2) Council Decision 2008/633/JHA, OJ 2008, L-218/129; compare Chap. B II 1 d bb.

  147. 147.

    Article 8 (3) Council Decision 2008/633/JHA, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  148. 148.

    Ibid, Article 8 (4).

  149. 149.

    Article 13 (1) (d) Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, OJ 2008, L-350/60.

  150. 150.

    Article 8 (8) Council Decision 2008/633/JHA, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  151. 151.

    Ibid, Article 9 (2) (i).

  152. 152.

    Compare Chap. B II 1 d cc.

  153. 153.

    Article 16 (1) (a)-(g) Council Decision 2008/633/JHA, OJ 2008, L-218/129.

  154. 154.

    Ibid, Article 16 (2).

  155. 155.

    Ibid, Article 16 (3).

  156. 156.

    Ibid, Article 14.

  157. 157.

    Compare Chap. B III 2 d.

  158. 158.

    Compare Chap. B II 1 d aa.

  159. 159.

    Compare Chap. B II 1 d aa.

  160. 160.

    Compare Chap. B II 1 d bb.

  161. 161.

    Compare Chap. B III 2 e.

  162. 162.

    Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, admissibility decision of 29 June 2006, para 135.

  163. 163.

    Article 11 Council Decision 2009/917, OJ 2009, L-323/20.

  164. 164.

    Ibid, Articles 11 (1).

  165. 165.

    Ibid, Articles 11 (1).

  166. 166.

    Ibid, Recital (5).

  167. 167.

    Ibid, Recital (5).

  168. 168.

    Ibid, Articles 11 (3) and 12 (2).

  169. 169.

    Ibid, Articles 11 (3). compare above Chap. B II 1 e.

  170. 170.

    See Chap. B III 3 b aa.

  171. 171.

    Articles 11 (4) and (5) Council Decision 2009/917, OJ 2009, L-323/20.

  172. 172.

    Ibid, Articles 13 (3) and 28.

  173. 173.

    Articles 29 (4) and 35 Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office, OJ 2009, L-121/37.

  174. 174.

    Opinion of the Customs Joint Supervisory Authority with respect to the draft Council Decision on the use of information technology for customs purposes (Opinion 09/03) of 24 March 2009, p. 6.

  175. 175.

    See Chap. B III 3 b.

  176. 176.

    Proposal for a Council Decision on requesting comparisons with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009, in the following: Proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009; Rogowicz (2010), in particular pp. 564 and 565.

  177. 177.

    Article 1 Proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009.

  178. 178.

    Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, OJ 2008, L-210/1.

  179. 179.

    Recital (11) proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009.

  180. 180.

    Ibid, Article 6 (1).

  181. 181.

    Ibid, Recital (11).

  182. 182.

    Article 7 proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009; the comparison of fingerprints at the national level is carried out by a so called “verifying authority” whose tasks are further defined in Article 4 of the proposal on law enforcement access to the Eurodac; each Member State shall designate a single national body being responsible for the “prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences” excluding agencies/units dealing especially with national security issues; only this authority shall be authorised to forward requests for comparison of fingerprints to the national contact point responsible for communicating with Eurodac’s central database.

  183. 183.

    Article 8 proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009.

  184. 184.

    See Chap. D III 2.

  185. 185.

    Article 12 proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final; the states which have already ratified the Dublin Convention apart from the 27 Member States are: Norway, Iceland and Switzerland (soon Liechtenstein).

  186. 186.

    Article 10 (1) proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final.

  187. 187.

    Ibid, Article 10 (4).

  188. 188.

    Ibid, Article 17 (1).

  189. 189.

    27 Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.

  190. 190.

    Meijers Committee, standing committee of experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law, Utrecht/The Netherlands, letter of 30 December 2009 to the European Parliament, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee on the Proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final.

  191. 191.

    Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EC) No (…/…) (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person), and on the proposal for a Council Decision on requesting comparisons with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes, OJ 2010, C-92/1; in the following: EDPS opinion on the proposal of law enforcement access to Eurodac, OJ 2010, C-92/1.

  192. 192.

    The Working Party on Police and Justice (WPPJ) is a working party composed of experts from national DPAs and works together with the Article 29 Working Party; compare WPPJ, Draft Annual Report for the Year 2009, p. 4.

  193. 193.

    For the discriminatory effect of a crime fighting database, compare case C-524/06, Heinz Huber v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 2008, discussed in Chap. B III 2 a aa.

  194. 194.

    WPPJ, Draft Annual Report for the Year 2009, p. 4; EDPS opinion on the proposal of law enforcement access to Eurodac, OJ 2010, C-92/1 and Meijers Committee, standing committee of experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law, Utrecht/The Netherlands, letter of 30 December 2009 to the European Parliament, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee on the proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final.

  195. 195.

    S. and Marper v the United Kingdom, Application nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, judgment of 4 December 2008, compare Chap. A II 1 d cc (1).

  196. 196.

    S. and Marper v the United Kingdom, Application nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, judgment of 4 December 2008, para 84.

  197. 197.

    Ibid, paras 116 and 117.

  198. 198.

    Meijers Committee, standing committee of experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law, Utrecht/The Netherlands, letter of 30 December 2009 to the European Parliament, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee on the proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final.

  199. 199.

    Explanatory memorandum of the proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009, p. 3.

  200. 200.

    Ibid, p. 4.

  201. 201.

    Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross border crime, OJ 2008, L-210/12 (Prüm Decision) and Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union, OJ 2006, L-386/89.

  202. 202.

    Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union, OJ 2006, L-386/89.

  203. 203.

    Explanatory memorandum of the proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009, p. 2.

  204. 204.

    Article 10 (4) proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009.

  205. 205.

    Compare Article 3 (2) proposal on law enforcement access to Eurodac, COM(2009) 344 final of 10 September 2009.

  206. 206.

    Articles 42 (1) and (6) SIS II Decision 2007/533.

  207. 207.

    House of Lords, Select Committee on European Union Written Evidence Sub-Committee F (Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs), letter from the Chairman to Bob Ainsworth MP, Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, Schengen Information System: new functions, (9407/02 and 9408/02) of 9 April 2003.

  208. 208.

    Article 42 SIS II Decision 2007/533.

  209. 209.

    Ibid, Articles 42 (1) and 43.

  210. 210.

    Ibid, Article 42 (2).

  211. 211.

    Compare Article 41 (5) (a), (b) and (d) with Article 42 (4), (5) and (7) SIS II Decision 2007/533.

  212. 212.

    See Sect. II 1 b.

  213. 213.

    Compare Article 16 Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; OJ 2008, L-350/60.

  214. 214.

    Recital (6) and Articles 8 and 12 Council Decision 2009/917, OJ 2009, L-323/20, for criticism compare Sect. II 3.

  215. 215.

    Recital (6) Council Decision 2009/917, OJ 2009, L-323/20.

  216. 216.

    Compare cases Weber and Saravia v. Germany, Application no. 54934/00, admissibility decision of 29 June 2006; Malone v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 8691/79, judgment of 2 August 1984, para 84; Klass v. Germany, Application no. 5029/71, judgment of 6 September 1978; Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 26839/05, judgment of 18 May 2010 and Kvasnica v. Slovakia, Application no. 72094/01, judgment of 9 June 2009.

  217. 217.

    Article 3 (1) VIS Regulation 767/2008.

  218. 218.

    Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, OJ 2006, L-105/54 and proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) for law enforcement purposes, COM(2007) 654 of 6 November 2007; with regard to the planned EU PNR system, compare McGinley (2010); with regard to the Data Retention Directive, compare Maras (2009).

References

  • Fawzy O (2005) Die Einrichtung von Eurojust – Zwischen Funktionalität und Rechtsstaatlichkeit, unter Berücksichtigung der Vorschläge des Europäischen Verfassungskonvents. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2009) EU criminal law. Hart publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijken C, Vermeulen G (2006) Joint investigation teams in the European Union, from theory to practice. T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Buck B (2007) Joint investigation teams: the participation of Europol officials. ERA Forum (8):253–264

    Google Scholar 

  • De Moor S (2009) The difficulties of joint investigation teams and the possible role of OLAF. Eucrim (3):94–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Gualtiere C (2007) Joint investigation teams. ERA Forum (8):233–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Gusy C (2008) Europäischer Datenschutz. In: Wolter J, Schenke W-R, Hilger H, Ruthing J, Zöller MA (eds) Alternativentwurf Europol und europäischer Datenschutz, 1st edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 265–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmberg M (2007) Eurojust and joint investigation teams: how Eurojust can support JITs. ERA Forum (8):245–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvatis L, de Buck B (2007) The Europol and Eurojust project on joint investigation teams. ERA Forum (8):239–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes da Mota JL (2009) Eurojust and its role in joint investigation teams. Eucrim (3):88–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Maras M-H (2009) From targeted to mass surveillance: is the EU Data Retention Directive a necessary measure or an unjustified threat to privacy?. In: New direction in surveillance and privacy. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, pp 74–103

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinley M (2010) Die Verarbeitung von Fluggastdaten für Strafverfolgungszwecke – Das geplante EU PNR System. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 4:250–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirke B (2010) OLAF’s role in the fight against fraud in the European Union: do too many cooks spoil the broth? Crime Law Soc Change 53:97–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riegel R (2009) Gemeinsame Ermittlungsgruppen, Herausforderungen und Lösungen. Eucrim (3):99–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijken C (2006) Joint investigation teams: principles, practice and problems, lessons learnt from the first efforts to establish a JIT. Utrecht Law Rev 2(2):99–118, December 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogowicz E (2010) Die Entwicklung der europäischen Asyl- und Flüchtlingspolitik und ihre datanschutzrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit 8:562–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervaele JAE (2008) The shaping and reshaping of Eurojust and OLAF. Eucrim (3–4), pp 180–186

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT), University of Luxembourg, 6, rue Richard Coudenhove Kalergi, 1359, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Dr. Franziska Boehm

Authors
  1. Dr. Franziska Boehm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska Boehm .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boehm, F. (2012). Chapter C Cooperation and Data Exchange of the AFSJ Actors and Their Compliance with the European Data Protection Standard. In: Information Sharing and Data Protection in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22392-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation