Information Sharing in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice—Towards a Common Standard for Data Exchange Between Agencies and EU Information Systems



Information sharing, including the exchange of personal data, between European law enforcement and judicial actors in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) is increasingly growing. In addition, the access of law enforcement and judicial agencies (Europol, Eurojust) to data stored in the European information systems, such as the CIS, SIS (II), VIS or Eurodac seems to become an essential tool in the field of EU internal security policy. Without being limited by the former pillar constraints, and above all, in absence of a unified approach to data protection in the former third pillar, the main actors in this field increasingly exchange data between each other as well as with third states. The paper illustrates the existing and the planned instruments governing AFSJ data exchange as well as their compliance with data protection rules. After that it suggests some basic data protection standards which follow from the respect of Article 8 ECHR and would improve the respect of data protection rules in the field of information sharing between agencies and EU agencies and information system.


European Union Criminal Matter Council Decision Judicial Cooperation Council Framework Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Commission communication. 2010. On A comprehensive strategy on data protection in the European Union, COM(2010) 609 final of 4 November 2010, p. 13, para 2.3.Google Scholar
  2. De Buck, Bart. 2007. Joint investigation teams: The participation of Europol officials. ERA Forum 8:263.Google Scholar
  3. De Hert, Paul, and Luc Vandamme. 2004. European police and judicial information-sharing, cooperation: Incorporation into the community, bypassing and extension of schengen. ERA Forum 5:425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Moor, Stefan. 2009. The difficulties of joint investigation teams and the possible role of OLAF. Eucrim 3:94–99, 97.Google Scholar
  5. De Schutter, Olivier. 2008. The two Europes of human rights: The emerging division of tasks between the Council of Europe and the European Union in promoting human rights in Europe. Columbia Journal of European Law 14:509–560.Google Scholar
  6. Garside, Alice. 2011. The political genesis and legal impact of proposals for the SIS II: What cost for data protection and security in the EU?, 16, Sussex Migration Working Paper no. 30, March 2006. Accessed 12 July 2011.Google Scholar
  7. Gusy, Christoph. 2008. Europäischer Datenschutz. In Alternativentwirf Europol und europäischer Datenschutz, ed. Jürgen Wolter et al., 265–280. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Hijmans, Hielke, and Alfonso Scirocco. 2009. Shortcomings in EU data protection in the third and the second pillars. Can the Lisbon Treaty be expected to help? Common Market Law Review 46:1485–1525.Google Scholar
  9. Holzenberger, Mark. 2006. Europols kleine Schwester—Die Europäische Grenzschutzagentur Frontex. Bürgerrechte und Polizei/CILIP 2:56–63.Google Scholar
  10. Horvatis, Lisa, and Bart deBuck. 2007. The Europol and Eurojust project on joint investigation teams. ERA Forum 8:239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lopes da Mota, José Luis. 2009. Eurojust and its role in joint investigation teams. Eucrim 3:88–90.Google Scholar
  12. Mitsilegas, Valsamis. 2009. EU criminal law. 223. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  13. Ralf, Riegel. 2009. Gemeinsame Ermittlungsgruppen, Herausforderungen und Lösungen. Eucrim 3:99–106.Google Scholar
  14. Rijken, Conny, and Gert Vermeulen. 2006. Joint investigation teams in the European Union, from theory to practice. The Hague: T.M.C Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Siemen, Birte. 2006. Datenschutz als europäisches Grundrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  16. Vervaele, John A. E. 2008. The shaping and reshaping of Eurojust and OLAF. Eucrim 184:3–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LuxembourgLuxembourgUSA

Personalised recommendations