An EU plan to use an automatic fingerprinting system and facial recognition software on irregular migrants and asylum-seekers is problematic and should not become a precedent for other laws, the bloc’s data protection chief said Friday.
“There is no evidence that the measures envisaged in the regulation are actually justified,” said a statement from Wojciech Wiewiorowski, the independent European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).
“I take the lack of an impact assessment as worrying, given the nature of the personal data at stake — sensitive biometric data — and that vulnerable people may be involved — migrants,” he said.
“The EDPS considers that this should not constitute a precedent for any future legislation having comparable impact on the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection,” he added.
EU countries and the European Parliament in December agreed a packet of draft laws that include the data collection of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers.
Other measures include a faster vetting of irregular arrivals, more border detention centres, speedier deportations and shared responsibility to take pressure off frontline EU countries.
The reform is expected to be legislated before June this year, when EU elections will decide the next European Parliament.
– Draft law ‘too vague’ –
Migrant rights groups, including Amnesty and Oxfam, have criticised the changes as a dismantling of human rights principles and refugee law.
The EDPS, which ensures EU institutions respect the bloc’s data protection laws, issues recommendations only.
As a consultative authority, it has no direct power to bring about changes to laws although it can appear in cases brought before the European Court of Justice.
Wiewiorowski, who has been the EDPS since 2019, on Tuesday issued an opinion on the biometric data aspect of the migration rules overhaul.
He acknowledged that the fight against migrant smuggling and human trafficking was “an important objective” that “may justify limitations on the exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual”.
But he insisted on the need for “proportionality”. The draft law was “too vague” on details of the impact of such biometric data collection and use, he said.
Wiewiorowski recommended binding safeguards, including how Europol processes the data, and restricting the use of the EU border agency Frontex to fight migrant smuggling “to avoid Frontex being turned de facto into a law enforcement agency”.
He also called for a closer look on how collected migrant data might be transferred to countries outside the EU.
