Despite mounting concerns from various quarters, the European Parliament has adopted its stance on the contentious Prüm II regulation, marking a significant development in the realm of automated data exchange for police cooperation within the EU. The regulation, proposed by the European Commission in December 2021, has stirred debate and prompted criticism from the Economic and Social Committee (EESC), political parties, and civil society organizations.
With 451 votes in favor, 94 against, and 10 abstentions, the European Parliament’s decision propels Prüm II into inter-institutional negotiations, known as trilogues, with the Council representing the 27 EU member states.
Prüm II represents a significant overhaul of the existing framework, allowing for automated data exchange to enhance police cooperation in criminal investigations. Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson emphasized the pressing need to combat organized crime, framing it as a threat on par with terrorism.
The reform expands the categories of data exchange to include facial images of suspects and convicted criminals, along with police records. However, data gathering is strictly limited to purposes of crime prevention, detection, or investigation.
To expedite access to data for cross-border cases, Prüm II proposes the establishment of two central routers: the Prüm II router and the European Police Records Index System (EPRIS). Additionally, the regulation grants Europol access to databases held by EU countries and vice versa, streamlining the process of checking third-country-sourced biometric data automatically.
Despite the perceived benefits, concerns persist regarding the potential implications of the regulation. The EESC has raised apprehensions about the risks associated with digital data exchange and facial profiling. Civil society organizations, including EDRi, have criticized Prüm II for prioritizing national security over fundamental rights, citing concerns about the necessity and proportionality of automated data exchange.
MEP Gwendoline Delbos-Corfiled from the Greens/European Free Alliance echoed these sentiments, cautioning against the expansion of police powers and the erosion of citizens’ control over their data.
The inclusion of facial images in the scope of automated data exchange has raised particular alarm among civil society groups. EDRi fears that Prüm II could incentivize more member states to adopt facial recognition technology, potentially infringing on privacy rights.
As the regulation progresses to trilogue negotiations, the debate over balancing security imperatives with the protection of fundamental rights is likely to intensify, reflecting the complex and evolving landscape of data governance in the European Union.
