Données biométriques

Avis sur les propositions relatives à l'accès à EURODAC à des fins répressives

Avis sur la communication de la Commission intitulée "Un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice au service des citoyens", JO C 276, 17.11.2009, p. 8

The EDPS has adopted an opinion on the European Commission's Communication of 10 June 2009 entitled “An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen”. The Communication is the Commission's contribution to the discussions on the new EU programme for the next five years in the area of justice and home affairs, the so called Stockholm programme, which is due to be adopted by the European Council in December 2009.

The EDPS supports the attention that has been devoted in the Communication to the protection of fundamental rights, and in particular the protection of personal data, as one of the key issues of the future framework for EU action on the questions of citizenship, justice, security, asylum and immigration. He fully endorses the Commission's view that more emphasis should be given to data protection in the areas concerned, and calls for the European Council to follow the same approach when adopting the Stockholm multi-annual programme.

Taking the need for protection of fundamental rights as main angle of the analysis, the EDPS opinion focuses on the following issues:

• need for a comprehensive data protection scheme: the EDPS fully supports the call for a comprehensive data protection scheme covering all areas of EU competence, regardless of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty;
• data protection principles: the EDPS welcomes the intention of the Commission to reaffirm a number of basic principles of data protection. He emphasises the importance of the purpose limitation principle as a cornerstone of data protection law. Focus should also be given to the possibilities for improving the effectiveness of the application of data protection principles, in particular through instruments than can reinforce the responsibilities of the data controllers;
• Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on an Area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen, OJ C 276, 17.11.2009, p. 8European information model: the EDPS notes the developments towards a European information model and an EU Information Management Strategy with great interest and underlines the attention that should be given in these projects to data protection elements, to be further elaborated in the Stockholm programme. The architecture for information exchange should be based on "privacy by design" and "Best Available Techniques".

Avis sur la proposition de règlement concernant la création du système "Eurodac" pour la comparaison des empreintes digitales aux fins de l'application efficace du règlement (CE) n° [.../...] (établissant les critère et mécanismes de détermination de l'Etat membre responsable de l'examen d'une demande de protection internationale présentée dans l'un des Etats membres par un ressortissant de pays tiers ou un apatride) [COM(2008) 825], JO C 229, 23.09.2009, p. 6

The Proposal is a revision of the EURODAC Regulation and its implementing regulation, Council Regulation No 407/2002/EC, and it aims at inter alia:

• improving the efficiency of the implementation of the EURODAC Regulation,
• ensuring consistency with the asylum acquis evolved since the adoption of the above-mentioned Regulation,
• updating a number of provisions taking account of factual developments since the adoption of the Regulation,
• establishing a new management framework.

The EDPS supports this Proposal and draws attention to the need to ensure full consistency between the EURODAC and Dublin Regulations. The EDPS sees the need for a better coordination and harmonization at EU level of the procedures for fingerprinting, whether they concern asylum seekers or any other persons subject to the EURODAC procedure. He draws special attention to the question of the age limits for fingerprinting, and in particular the difficulties occurring in several Member States to determine the age of young asylum seekers. The EDPS insists on a clarification of the provisions regarding the rights of the data subjects, and in particular he underlines that the national data controllers are primarily responsible to ensure the application of these rights.

Avis concernant la proposition de règlement modifiant le règlement (CE) n° 2252/2004 du Conseil établissant des normes pour les éléments de sécurité et les éléments biométriques intégrés dans les passeports et les documents de voyage délivrés par les Etats membres, JO C 200, 06.08.2008, p. 1

On 26 March 2008, the EDPS adopted an opinion on the Commission's proposal aiming at revising the 2004 Council Regulation that sets out minimum standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents.

The EDPS welcomes the introduction of exemptions from giving fingerprints based on the age of the person or his/her inability to provide fingerprints. However, he still considers these exemptions as insufficient to remedy the imperfections of biometrics, such as the impact of misidentification or failure to enrol.
The EDPS' opinion includes the following recommendations:

• fingerprints from children: the proposed six-year age limit should be considered as a provisional one, or brought in line with international practice (14 years). After three years, the age limit should be reviewed and defined by an in-depth study which is to identify the accuracy of the systems obtained under real conditions;
• fingerprints from the elderly: an age limit for elderly, based on similar experiences already in place (79 years), should be introduced as an additional exemption;
• principle of "one person-one passport": this principle should be applied only to children above the relevant age limit;
• "breeder" documents: additional measures should be proposed to harmonise the production and the use of documents required in Member States to issue passports (“breeder” documents).

The EDPS recalls that exemptions should in no way stigmatize or discriminate individuals who will be exempt, because of their age as a precautionary principle or because they present obviously unreadable fingerprints