EU Legislation

Request History

No previous requests logged.

Session

• 0(null)

Request

Cake Params

• plugin(null)
• controllereu_legislatory_documents
• actionindex
• named(empty)
• pass(empty)
• localeen
• paging(array)
  • EuLegislatoryDocument(array)
    • page5
    • current7
    • count175
    • prevPage(true)
    • nextPage(true)
    • pageCount25
    • order(array)
      • EuLegislatoryDocument.issue_datedesc
    • limit7
    • options(array)
      • page5
    • paramTypequerystring
    • queryScope(null)

Post data

No post data.

Query string

• page5

Cookie

To view Cookies, add CookieComponent to Controller

Current Route

• name(null)
• _fields(empty)
• resourceActionindex
• modelEuLegislatoryDocument
• keys(array)
  • 0locale
• options(array)
  • pass(empty)
• defaults(array)
  • controllereu_legislatory_documents
  • actionindex
  • plugin(null)
• template/:locale/eu-legislatory
• config(empty)

Sql Logs

Logs

View Variables

• menuNameCurrentMenuLinkmain
• title_for_layoutEU Legislation
• documents(array)
  • 0(array)
    • EuLegislatoryDocument(array)
      • id325
      • created2016-04-21 15:51:11
      • modified2016-05-30 10:54:58
      • titleDirective (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">The Commission issued on 2 February 2011 a <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52011PC0032">proposal</a> for a Directive on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, (COM(2011) 32 final). It followed a previous <a href="http://www.eclan.eu/Default.aspx?CatID=77&PN123=3&cCatID=C8&CtrlClientID=_ctl7&SysID123=149">proposal for a framework-decision</a> made on 6 November 2007 and intended to provide for a reactive, real time, and proactive tool to law enforcement authorities in the fight against terrorism by using data collected by air carriers. The first proposal for a framework-decision was not adopted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The European Data Protection Supervisor issued an <a href="https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-03-25_PNR_EN.pdf">Opinion</a> on 25 March 2011, explaining that it was a better proposal but still needed changes to be considered as sufficiently balanced. Similarly, the <a href="https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/opinionsresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)%20(documentlanguage:en)%20(documentnumber:0803)%20(documentyear:2011)">Opinion</a> issued by the European Economic and Social Committee on 5 May 2011 underlined the risk that this proposal steps up “security at the expense of citizens' rights”. The Article 29 Working Party on Data Protection’s <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2011/wp181_en.pdf">Opinion</a> and the European Fundamental Rights Agency’s <a href="http://fra.europa.eu/en/opinion/2011/fra-opinion-proposal-passenger-name-record-pnr-directive">Opinion</a> did also raise serious doubts about this proposal. The Council adopted a <a href="http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%208916%202012%20INIT" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">general approach</a> on the text proposed by the Commission on 23 April 2012, before starting the negotiations with the Parliament. This first draft of the Directive was rejected by the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2013-0150&format=XML&language=EN" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">LIBE Committee</a> (Rapporteur: Timothy Kirkhope) of the European Parliament, questioning its necessity and its proportionality, on 24 April 2013 and was no longer considered as a priority.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The project regained attention at the beginning of the year after the terrorist attacks in Paris. In a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0032+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN">resolution</a> on anti-terrorism measures adopted on 11 February 2015, the European Parliament stated that the PNR Directive should be adopted by the end of the year. The Parliament stressed the necessity to take into account the fundamental rights principles and the <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=150642&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=386868">Digital Rights Ireland</a> Judgment. The LIBE Committee of the European Parliament issued on 17 February a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-549.223&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01">first draft report</a> on the proposition, and a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A8-2015-0248&language=EN&mode=XML">second report</a> on this proposal on 7 September. These new drafts narrowed the scope of the project to cover terror offences and serious "transnational" crime (Art. 1(2)), gave specific consideration for sensitive data (Art 4(1), limited the access to PNR data to four years instead of five for serious crime (Art. 9 (2a)), created the obligation for each EU member state to appoint a data protection supervisory officer (Art. 3a), and requested specific training and selection of the person who access and analyze the PNR data (Art. 3a (1)).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">An <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/02/150212-european-council-statement-fight-against-terrorism/">informal meeting</a> of the Heads of State or Government on 12 February 2015 asked the EU legislators to urgently adopt a strong and effective European Passenger Name Records Directive with solid data protection safeguards. Following this, the COREPER agreed on 18 February 2015, that the general approach should be used as a basis for informal trilogues with the European Parliament. The Luxembourg presidency <a href="https://edri.org/files/PNR2015/EU-PNR-Trialogue-background.pdf">started the discussion</a> in order to prepare the first informal trilogue held in September 2015. The JHA Councils on 12-13 March and on 15-16 June reiterated the crucial importance of soon reaching an agreement on PNR. The document issued by the Presidency underlined the key elements that needed to be discussed. The scope of the Directive is the main issue. While the Council wanted to extend it to prevention of “serious crime” in general, the European Parliament wanted to limit it to serious transnational crime only and also to provide a list of the offences considered as being serious. Similarly, the optional inclusion by the Member States of intra EU-flights was proposed in the Council general approach because of its usefulness as regards the monitoring of foreign terrorist fighters but was rejected by the Parliament. The parliament however wished to extend the scope of the Directive to the prevention of immediate and serious threats to public security and also to data held by non-carrier economic operators. The possibility to allow EUROPOL to access these data, requested by the Parliament, is also a question. No information about the negotiations has been released.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In its <a href="https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2015/15-09-24_PNR_EN.pdf">second opinion on the proposal</a> on 24 September, the European Data Protection Supervisor pointed out that in spite of the improvement made, the draft still does not comply with necessity and proportionality principles. It reiterates “the EU needs to justify on a basis of available evidence why a massive, non-targeted and indiscriminate collection of data of individuals is necessary and why that measure is urgently needed”. Beyond this general lack of justification about the necessity of the project, the European data protection supervisor also underlined several shortcomings of the Proposal. Most of them are based on the <em>Digital Rights Ireland</em> case. For example, the data retention period should be justified by objective criteria and the Directive should clearly provide that the PNR data may not be used for other purposes than the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious transnational crime. Moreover, court or an independent administrative body should give a prior approval upon a request of access to the data by a competent authority. Furthermore, the scope of the PNR scheme should be much more limited and framed. Finally, the criteria to justify the PNR access by the competent authorities should also be clearly defined.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Following a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9161-2015-INIT/en/pdf">request from the Parliament</a>, the Court of Justice will give on opinion on the agreement envisaged between the European Union and Canada on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data, which will clarify the compatibility of this practice with fundamental rights.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">After the terrorist attack in Paris this 13 November 2015, the Council reiterates the urgency and priority to finalise an ambitious EU PNR before the end of 2015. On 2 December 2015, after negotiations with the Parliament, the Council issued the <a href="http://statewatch.org/news/2015/dec/eu-council-eu-pnr-final-compromise-14670-15.pdf">proposed compromise</a> for approval of a final compromise text. It clearly underlined the main political issues and the final decisions. Concerning the scope of the Directive, the processing of data is allowed only for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (Art. 1 (2)). The definition of serious crime encompassed categories of offences listed in annex II (Recital 12). The text also incorporates part of the European Parliament amendments by including a data protection officer (Art. 3a). The text permits the Member States to extend the scope of the Directive to include in the national implementation non carrier economic operator such as travel agencies and tour operators (Recital 28) and intra-EU flights (Art. 1a). Concerning the period of data retention, a maximum is fixed at 5 years (Recital 32, Art. 9 (1)), and the data shall be systematically depersonalized six months after the initial transfer of data. Afterwards, disclosure of the full PNR data shall be permitted only in very specific conditions (Art. 9 (2)).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, considering the current security situation in Europe, the Member states issued a declaration to the minutes of the Council. They declare that they will make full use of their possibility to include intra EU-flights in the scope of their national law implementing the Directive. Moreover, they will undertake to extent the collection of PNR data to non-air carrier such as travel agencies and tour operators which provide travel-related services including the booking of flights for which they collect and process PNR data (this was later repeated in a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7829-2016-ADD-1/en/pdf">statement of the Council</a>).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The plenary of the European Parliament adopted its <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7823-2016-INIT/en/pdf">position at first reading</a>, on 14 April 2016 with only one amendment to the proposed draft, requesting the Council to adopt at the same time the PNR Directive and the package on data protection. The Council adopted unanimously the Directive in <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8267-2016-INIT/en/pdf">first reading</a> on 25 April 2016. The final text was adopted on 27 April 2017. Directive 2016/681 has been published in the official journal on 4 May 2016 (OJ L 119).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Following a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9161-2015-INIT/en/pdf">request from the Parliament</a>, the Court of Justice will give on opinion on the agreement envisaged between the European Union and Canada on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data, which will clarify the compatibility of this practice with fundamental rights.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
      • typeDirective
      • reference_number2016/681
      • issue_date2016-04-27
      • official_journal
      • linkhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0681&from=EN
      • keywords
      • slugdirective-eu-2016-681-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-of-27-april-2016-on-the-use-of-passenger-name-record-pnr-data-for-the-prevention-detection-investigation-and-prosecution-of-terrorist-offences-and-serious-crime
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 1(array)
    • EuLegislatoryDocument(array)
      • id329
      • created2016-05-30 11:05:29
      • modified2016-05-30 11:05:29
      • titleDirective (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detectio
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">On 25 January 2012, the Commission proposed a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm">new framework</a> for data protection in the EU including two legislative proposals: the first being a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf">proposal for a Regulation</a>, setting out a general EU framework for data protection, and repealing the Directive 95/46/EC; and the second a <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0010:FIN:EN:PDF">proposal for a Directive</a> on protecting personal data processed for law enforcement purposes, replacing <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:350:0060:0071:en:PDF">Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA</a> (COM(2012) 10 final). The Directive would apply to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties. Its scope would be broader than that of the current Framework Decision since domestic processing operations would also be covered in addition to “cross-border” data. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Following this proposition, the European data protection supervisor issued an <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012XX0630(01)&from=EN">opinion</a> on 7 March 2012. Similarly, the European Fundamental rights agency issued on <a href="http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-opinion-data-protection-oct-2012.pdf">opinion</a> on 1 October 2015. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Following the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (Rapporteur : Dimitrios Droutsas) and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs European Parliament adopted its <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0219+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN">first reading position</a> on 12 March 2014. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Regarding the Council, the proposed Directive has been discussed in the Working Party on information exchange and data protection (DAPIX) under every Presidency since the beginning of 2012. In September 2014, the scope of the Directive was the subject of a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13260-2014-INIT/en/pdf">discussion</a>. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Work on this proposed Directive continued under the Luxembourg Presidency with the aim to reach an agreement on the whole data protection package by the end of 2015. A <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12555-2015-INIT/en/pdf">compromise</a> was drafted in order to reach a general approach during the JHA Council which took place on 8-9 October. The Council <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/10/09-data-protection/">agreed</a> on this negotiating position, which allowed the Luxembourg presidency to start discussions with the European Parliament and to organise a first trilogue on 27 October 2015. The Presidency issued a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12493-2015-INIT/en/pdf">preparatory document</a> in this view. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In the meantime, the European data protection supervisor issued a general <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11404-2015-INIT/en/pdf">opinion</a> on the 27^th of July and an <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12921-2015-INIT/en/pdf">addendum</a> on the 9^th of October. These documents were related to the general package on data protection. The European data protection supervisor issued a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13523-2015-INIT/en/pdf">specific opinion</a> on 28 October 2015 on the Directive for data protection in the police and justice sectors. Several recommendations were made.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Following a trilogue on 17 and 18 December 2015, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament and the Permanent Representatives Committee of the Council confirmed an agreement on the compromise text resulting from the negotiations. An <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15174-2015-INIT/en/pdf">analysis of the agreement</a> was released by the Presidency in order to underline the main compromise that were reached. On 12 February 2016, the Council reached a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5463-2016-INIT/en/pdf">political agreement</a> on the draft Directive. On 8 April the Council adopted its <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5418-2016-REV-1/en/pdf">position at first reading</a>, fully in line with the compromise text. The Council simultaneously published a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5418-2016-REV-1-ADD-1/en/pdf">statement of reasons</a> explaining the position. The Czech Republic issued a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7921-2016-INIT/en/pdf">statement</a> on this vote, arguing that this Directive is not in full conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, does not address the issue on the relationship between the new Directive and existing instruments of judicial cooperation in criminal matters or police cooperation, and imposes disproportionate burdens on competent authorities and foresees an implementation period which is unreasonably short. On 11 April 2016, the Commission released a <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7807-2016-INIT/en/pdf">communication</a> to confirm its support for this agreement. Because no amendment has been adopted by the Council, the Council’s position at first reading was <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7985-2016-INIT/en/pdf">approved by the European Parliament</a>. The <a href="http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-16-2016-INIT/en/pdf">final document</a> was released on 27 April 2016. <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0680&from=EN">Directive 2016/680</a> has been published in the official journal on 4 may 2016 (OJ L 119). </p>
      • typeDirective
      • reference_number2016/680
      • issue_date2016-04-27
      • official_journal
      • linkhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0680&from=EN
      • keywords
      • slugdirective-eu-2016-680-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-of-27-april-2016-on-the-protection-of-natural-persons-with-regard-to-the-processing-of-personal-data-by-competent-authorities-for-the-purposes-of-the-prevention-investigation-detection-or
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 2(array)
    • EuLegislatoryDocument(array)
      • id324
      • created2016-03-21 12:01:27
      • modified2016-05-30 10:14:32
      • titleDirective (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">On March 9th 2016, the Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings has been finally adopted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Commission issued its proposal on 27 November 2013 (COM(2013) 821 final). The proposal only applies to natural persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings (Art. 2). It includes a general provision on the presumption of innocence (Art. 3). It requires Member States to ensure that, before a final conviction, public authorities refrain from public statements that would refer to the suspects or accused persons as if they were convicted (Art. 4). Concerning the burden of proof, it specifies that any reversal of the burden of proof may be rebutted if the defence adduces enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt regarding the suspect or accused person's guilt (Art. 5(2)). The proposal also lays down the principle that everyone has the right to remain silent as regards the facts he/she is accused of and obliges Member States to give sufficient information on the content of this right as well as the consequences of renouncing or invoking it (Art. 7). Finally, it provides that suspects or accused persons have the right to be present at their trial (Art. 8). The possibility to decide on the issue of guilt in their absence is nevertheless possible, under similar conditions to those provided for in the in absentia Framework Decision.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Council adopted its general approach on 4 December 2014, at the end of the Italian Presidency’s mandate. It specified the personal and temporal scope of application of the Directive (Art. 2). It provides that the presumption of innocence is undermined if a public statement refers to the suspects or accused persons as if they were guilty but it introduces an exception to this principle for reasons relating to the criminal investigation or for the public interest (Art. 4). Concerning the burden of proof, it provides that presumptions must be rebuttable and that they may only be used provided the rights of the defence are respected (Art. 5(2)). The right against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent were merged into one provision, which no longer includes a rule on admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of such provision (Art. 6). Finally, with regard to “in abstentia” trials, substantial parts of the text of Article 8 were transferred to the recitals (Recitals 22 c) and 22 d)).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In turn, the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament adopted its draft report on 21 January 2015 and its orientation vote on 31 March 2015 (rapporteur: Nathalie Griesbeck). The Committee report was tabled for plenary 1st reading/single reading 21 April 2015. The Committee proposed some important amendments. First and foremost, it proposed to extend the scope of application of the Directive to legal persons and to similar proceedings of a criminal nature leading to comparable sanctions of a punitive and deterrent nature (Art. 2). It proposed to require Member States to ensure that, before a final conviction, public authorities refrain from public statements that would refer to the suspects or accused persons as if they were guilty, and it did not provide for any exception in this regard (Art. 4). It also proposed that in the event of breach of those requirements concerning public statements and official decisions from public authorities effective remedies be taken to ameliorate the breach (Art. 4(3)). Most importantly, the Committee rejected the proposed Art. 5(2) on the burden of proof, by arguing that the reversal of the burden of proof in criminal proceedings would be unacceptable, as the principle that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution must be left untouched. In addition, it demanded more stringent rules concerning “in abstentia” trials (Art. 8). Finally, the Committee wanted to reinforce the exclusionary rule by providing that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against self-incrimination and cooperation or of the right to remain silent must be inadmissible (Art. 10(3)).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Five trilogues were held between January and October 2015, under the Latvian and Luxembourg Presidencies. On 4 November 2015, COREPER approved the compromise text agreed with the European Parliament during the fifth trilogue.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Directive was signed on 9 March 2016, and published in the Official Journal on 11 March 2016 (OJ L 65). It has to be implemented by the Member States by 1 April 2018. Contrary to the initial approach adopted by the LIBE Committee, this text excludes legal persons from the scope of the Directive, assuming that it would be premature to legislate at Union level on this issue (Recital 14). In this regard, it notably recalls that the ECJ recognised that the rights flowing from the presumption of innocence do not accrue to legal persons in the same way as to natural persons (Recital 13). It endorsed the Council’s proposal to provide for an exception to the prohibition of public statements by public authorities to refer to the suspects or accused persons as if they were guilty (Art. 4 (3)). Concerning the rule on admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of the right against self-incrimination or of the right to remain silent, the compromise text endorsed the Council’s proposal to delete Art. 6 (4) of the Commission’s proposal, but specifies that, without prejudice to national rules and systems on the admissibility of evidence, Member States shall ensure that, in criminal proceedings, in the assessment of statements made by suspects or accused persons or of evidence obtained in breach of their right to remain silent or their right against self-incrimination, the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings are respected (Art. 10 (2)). Concerning the burden of proof, it retained the LIBE Committee’s proposal to delete Article 5(2), while retaining comparable language in the recitals (Recital 22). The Commission expressed reservations with respect to the latter deletion and to the final version of Article 7(6) on the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself with regard to minor offences. Finally, with regard to “in abstentia” trials, it retained the lighter text of Article 8 of the Council’s general approach.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p> <p></p>
      • typeDirective
      • reference_number2016/343
      • issue_date2016-03-09
      • official_journal
      • link
      • keywords
      • slugdirective-eu-2016-343-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-of-9-march-2016-on-the-strengthening-of-certain-aspects-of-the-presumption-of-innocence-and-of-the-right-to-be-present-at-the-trial-in-criminal-proceedings
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 3(array)
    • EuLegislatoryDocument(array)
      • id344
      • created2018-05-15 17:49:52
      • modified2018-05-18 15:40:07
      • titleProposals for a Directive and for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the exchange of information on third country nationals, as regards the ECRIS and establishing a centralised system to supplement and support the ECRIS
      • description<div style="text-align: justify;"><em><strong>Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA, as regards the exchange of information on third country nationals and as regards the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), and replacing Council Decision 2009/316/JHA <span style="white-space:pre"> AND </span>Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a centralised system for the identification of Member States holding conviction information on third country nationals and stateless persons (TCN) to supplement and support the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS-TCN system) and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011</strong></em></div> <p style="text-align: justify;"></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">On 19 January 2016, the Commission tabled a<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0007&from=EN"> proposal</a> for a Directive improving the existing European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) with regard to third country nationals (TCN). The proposal was part of the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint-declaration-legislative-priorities-2017-jan2017_en.pdf">Joint Declaration</a> of the EU’s legislative priorities for 2017.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /> Under the current system, Member States receive systematically information on convictions of their nationals from other Member States, to store in their criminal records. This enables Member States to obtain complete information on previous convictions of an EU national from the Member State of nationality of that person. However, requesting Member States have to send ‘blanket requests’ to all Member States, which creates a heavy administrative burden.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /> During the examination of the proposal by the Council, Member States expressed a strong preference for establishing a centralised, rather than decentralised, system for third country nationals at EU level. In light of this, the negotiations on the draft Directive were suspended following the request by the Member States to the Commission, at the <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/22815/st09979en16.pdf">Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council on 9 June 2016</a>, to evaluate the legislative framework and present a proposal for establishment of a central database for convicted third country nationals.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /> The <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017PC0344&from=EN">proposal</a> for a Regulation to establish a central database was submitted by the Commission on 29 June 2017. Following that, the Presidency submitted a <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_11568_2017_INIT&from=EN">revised text</a> for the accompanying Directive on 31 July 2017, which takes into consideration the proposal for a Regulation tabled by the Commission. The Regulation will regulate all issues related to central database, while the Directive will complement the existing Framework Decision on matters of general nature related to functioning of ECRIS. On 11 September the supplementary file was referred to the LIBE Committee and Daniel Dalton was appointed as rapporteur.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /> Within the Council, the Working Party for Cooperation in Criminal Matters (COPEN) examined these proposals at several meetings between July and November. Some of the issues were also discussed by the Coordinating Committee in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (CATS) in September 2017. Finally, on 8 December 2017, the Council reached a general approach on the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_15450_2017_INIT&from=EN">proposed Directive</a> and the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_15448_2017_INIT&from=EN">proposed Regulation.</a></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><br /> On 12 December 2017, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued its <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:ST_15761_2017_INIT&from=EN">opinion</a> on the proposal for a Regulation on the ECRIS-TCN centralised system. The EDPS pointed out that, as ECRIS is a system adopted by the EU prior to the Lisbon Treaty, the new proposals for a Directive and a Regulation must bring the system up to the standards required by Article 16 TFEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including meeting the requirements for any lawful limitation on fundamental rights.</p>
      • typeProposal for a Directive and Proposal for a Regulation
      • reference_numberCOM(2016) 7 final and COM(2017) 344 final
      • issue_date2016-01-19
      • official_journalNot published in the Official Journal
      • linkhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2016/0002(COD)&l=en http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2017/0144(COD)&l=en
      • keywordsECRIS
      • slugproposals-for-a-directive-and-for-a-regulation-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-as-regards-the-exchange-of-information-on-third-country-nationals-as-regards-the-ecris-and-establishing-a-centralised-system-to-supplement-and-support-the-ecris
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 4(array)
    • EuLegislatoryDocument(array)
      • id328
      • created2016-05-30 10:42:26
      • modified2016-05-30 11:08:08
      • titleRegulation (EU) 2015/2219 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2005/681/JHA
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">On 16 July 2014, the European Commission put forward a <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014PC0465&from=EN">proposal for a Regulation establishing CEPOL (COM(2014) 465 final)</a>, repealing and replacing the <a href="https://www.cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/website/About_CEPOL/2005681jha.pdf">Council Decision 2005/681/JHA</a>. The proposal initially provided for the merger of CEPOL with Europol, but the idea was rejected by both the Council and the European Parliament, the Commission therefore decided to renounce to this aspect of its legislative proposal. The proposal seeks to boost CEPOL's role as the European Agency for Law Enforcement training. It gives CEPOL the appropriate legal mandate and the necessary resources to implement the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/police-cooperation/europol-cepol/docs/law_enforcement_training_scheme_en.pdf">EU Law Enforcement Training Scheme</a> (LETS) proposed in March 2013, which aims to equip law enforcement officials of all ranks with the knowledge and skills they need to prevent and combat cross-border crime (Art. 3 (1)). It updates and clarifies CEPOL’s objectives, notably including a coordination role and a focus on thematic areas where training at Union level can be of added value (Art. 3). It attributes a number of new tasks to CEPOL, such as those related to assessing EU initiatives in defined fields, building the capacity of third countries, providing multiannual strategic training needs assessments, and the promotion of mutual recognition of training among EU Member States (Art. 4). It mandates Member States to establish a national unit, which notably has to respond to requests for information from CEPOL, and to appoint an official as the Head of the national unit, who will be National contact point of CEPOL and the Member State's representative at the Management Board (Art. 6). The administrative and management structure of CEPOL is modified to better reflect the common approach on decentralised agencies. In particular, CEPOL Secretariat is absent for CEPOL’s structure and the Governing Board is replaced by a Management Board, comprising the European Commission as voting member (Art. 7). The appointment mechanism of the Executive Director is modified to include the European Commission (Art. 22). Finally, additional functions and responsibilities were given to the Management Board and the Executive Director (Art. 9 and 14).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The LIBE Committee of the European Parliament adopted its <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-539.817+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN">draft report</a> on 25 November 2014 and its orientation vote on 24 February 2015 (rapporteur: Kinga Gál).The <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A8-2015-0048+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN">Committee report</a> was tabled for plenary 1st reading/single reading on 12 March 2015.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Trilogue negotiations started in March 2015 and a compromise between co-legislators was reached during the JHA Council meeting of 15-16 June 2015. This agreement was endorsed, on behalf of the Council, by COREPER on 29 June 2015.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The plenary of the European Parliament adopted its <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TC+P8-TC1-COD-2014-0217+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN">first reading position</a> 29 October 2015. The Council adopted the proposal on 16 November 2015. The final act was signed on 25 November 2015 and published in the Official Journal on 4 December 2015 (OJ L 319). It will enter into force on 1 July 2016. Even if the final text maintains most changes made to CEPOL’s legal framework by the Commission’s proposal and adds some elements to it, such as an implementation role in CEPOL’s objectives (Art. 3), some elements put forward in the proposal were deleted, in particular the reference to LETS in the operative part of the regulation to the Head of national unit.</p>
      • typeRegulation
      • reference_number2015/2219
      • issue_date2015-11-25
      • official_journal
      • linkhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015R2219
      • keywords
      • slugregulation-eu-2015-2219-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-of-25-november-2015-on-the-european-union-agency-for-law-enforcement-training-cepol-and-replacing-and-repealing-council-decision-2005-681-jha
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 5(array)
    • EuLegislatoryDocument(array)
      • id322
      • created2015-11-06 16:37:26
      • modified2015-11-17 11:45:47
      • titleDirective 2015/413/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">On 19 March 2008, the Commission submitted to the Parliament and the Council a proposal for a directive seeking, in essence, to facilitate the exchange of information concerning certain road traffic offences and the crossborder enforcement of the sanctions attached to them. That proposal was based on the powers of the EU in relation to transport safety, namely Art. 91 paragraph 1 letter e) TFUE. On 25 October 2011, the Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2011/82, using however as a legal basis the EU’s competence in the field of police cooperation, namely Art. 87 paragraph 2 TFUE. Taking the view that the directive had been adopted on the incorrect legal basis, the Commission brought annulment proceedings before the Court of Justice.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In its judgment <a href="http://eclan.eu/en/eu-case-law/commission-vs-parliament-and-council-road-safety-related-traffic-offences">C-43/12 Commission v Parliament and Council,</a> the Court states that measures to improve road safety fall within transport policy. In fact, both in respect of its aim and its content, the directive is a measure to improve transport safety and should therefore have been adopted on that basis. Nonetheless, the Court considered that there were important grounds of legal certainty why the effects of that directive should be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time — which may not have exceeded twelve months from the date of delivery of the judgment — of a new directive based on the correct legal basis (that is to say, transport safety).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The new Directive, based on Art. 91 paragraph 1 letter c) TFUE, sets up a procedure for the exchange of information between Member States in relation to eight road traffic offences (speeding, non-use of a seat-belt, failing to stop at a red traffic light, drink-driving, driving under the influence of drugs, failing to wear a crash helmet, use of a forbidden lane and illegally using a mobile telephone). The Member States may thus access each other's national data concerning vehicle registration in order to determine the person liable for the offence.<br />  </p>
      • typeDirective
      • reference_number2015/413/EU
      • issue_date2015-11-06
      • official_journalOJ L 68, 13.3.2015, pp. 9–25
      • linkhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015L0413
      • keywordsroad safaty,ECJ,information exchange,legal basis
      • slugdirective-2015-413-eu-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-of-11-march-2015-facilitating-cross-border-exchange-of-information-on-road-safety-related-traffic-offences
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id(null)
      • approved_online1
  • 6(array)
    • EuLegislatoryDocument(array)
      • id96
      • created2011-01-07 00:00:00
      • modified2015-11-17 11:45:46
      • titleAgreement between The United States of America and The European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection, and prosecution of criminal offenses (not yet binding under PIL)
      • description<p style="text-align: justify;">The European Parliament, in a resolution on 26 March 2009, called for an EU-US agreement that ensures adequate protection of civil liberties and personal data protection. In December 2009, the European Council invited the Commission to propose a Recommendation "for the negotiation of a data protection and, where necessary, data sharing agreements for law enforcement purposes with the US." Negotiations officially begun on 29 March 2011.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The EU-US so-called "Umbrella Agreement" puts in place a data protection framework for EU-US law enforcement cooperation. The Agreement covers all personal data (for example names, addresses, criminal records) exchanged between the EU and the U.S. for the purpose of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, including terrorism. The agreement will complement existing EU-US and MS–US agreements between law enforcement authorities. It will create clear harmonised data protection rules and set a high level of protection for future agreements in this field.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The Umbrella agreement will provide the following protections to make sure that everyone's data are protected when exchanged between police and criminal justice authorities:</p> <ul> <li style="text-align: justify;">Clear limitations on data use – Personal data may only be used for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting criminal offences, and may not be processed beyond compatible purposes.</li> <li style="text-align: justify;">Onward transfer – Any onward transfer to a non-US, non-EU country or international organisation must be subject to the prior consent of the competent authority of the country which had originally transferred personal data.</li> <li style="text-align: justify;">Retention periods - Individuals' personal data may not be retained for longer than necessary or appropriate. These retention periods will have to be published or otherwise made publicly available. The decision on what is an acceptable duration must take into account the impact on people's rights and interests.</li> <li style="text-align: justify;">Right to access and rectification - Any individual will be entitled to access their personal data – subject to certain conditions, given the law enforcement context – and request it to be corrected if it is inaccurate.</li> <li style="text-align: justify;">Information in case of data security breaches – A mechanism will be put in place so as to ensure notification of data security breaches to the competent authority and, where appropriate, the data subject.</li> <li style="text-align: justify;">Judicial redress and enforceability of rights - EU citizens will have the right to seek judicial redress before US courts in case of the US authorities deny access or rectification, or unlawfully disclose their personal data. This provision of the Agreement depends on the adoption by U.S. Congress of the US Judicial Redress Bill will have been adopted.</li> </ul>
      • typeAgreement
      • reference_number-
      • issue_date2015-09-08
      • official_journalNot yet published in the Official Journal
      • linkhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5612_en.htm
      • keywordsUmbrella Agreement,EU-US,United States,EEUU,data protection
      • slugagreement-between-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-european-union-on-the-protection-of-personal-information-relating-to-the-prevention-investigation-detection-and-prosecution-of-criminal-offenses-not-yet-binding-under-pil
      • approved(true)
      • online(true)
      • old_id324
      • approved_online1
• query(array)
  • page5
• meta(array)
  • titleEU Legislation
• $request->data(empty)
• $this->validationErrors(array)
  • Menu(empty)
  • MenuLink(empty)
  • MenuLinkTranslation(empty)
  • AcademicProject(empty)
  • SearchDocument(empty)
  • Page(empty)
  • PageTranslation(empty)
  • EuLegislatoryDocument(empty)
  • PhdDocument(empty)
  • Newsletter(empty)
  • NewsletterTranslation(empty)
  • EuCaseLawDocument(empty)
  • Member(empty)
  • Event(empty)
  • EventTranslation(empty)
  • Publication(empty)
  • Link(empty)
  • LinkTranslation(empty)
• Loaded Helpers(array)
  • 0Asset
  • 1Attachment
  • 2Html
  • 3Share
  • 4Form
  • 5Paginator
  • 6CookiesWarning
  • 7EventDates
  • 8Website
  • 9FormCrypt
  • 10Number
  • 11SimpleGraph
  • 12Menus
  • 13DebugTimer
  • 14Toolbar
  • 15Text
  • 16HtmlToolbar

App Constants

CakePHP Constants

PHP Environment

Included Files

Include Paths

• 1/usr/share/php
• 2-> /var/web/vd13792/ulb008_releases/20220919065337/cakephp/lib/Cake/

Included Files

• core(array)
  • Behavior(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Behavior/ContainableBehavior.php
  • Cache(array)
    • 0CORE/Cache/Cache.php
    • 1CORE/Cache/Engine/FileEngine.php
    • 2CORE/Cache/CacheEngine.php
  • Component(array)
    • 0CORE/Controller/Component/PaginatorComponent.php
    • 1CORE/Controller/Component/SessionComponent.php
  • Config(array)
    • 0CORE/Config/config.php
  • Configure(array)
    • 0CORE/Configure/PhpReader.php
    • 1CORE/Configure/ConfigReaderInterface.php
  • Controller(array)
    • 0CORE/Controller/Controller.php
    • 1CORE/Controller/ComponentCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Controller/Component.php
  • Datasource(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Datasource/CakeSession.php
    • 1CORE/Model/Datasource/Database/Mysql.php
    • 2CORE/Model/Datasource/DboSource.php
    • 3CORE/Model/Datasource/DataSource.php
  • Error(array)
    • 0CORE/Error/exceptions.php
    • 1CORE/Error/ErrorHandler.php
  • I18n(array)
    • 0CORE/I18n/I18n.php
    • 1CORE/I18n/L10n.php
  • Log(array)
    • 0CORE/Log/CakeLog.php
    • 1CORE/Log/LogEngineCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Log/Engine/FileLog.php
    • 3CORE/Log/Engine/BaseLog.php
    • 4CORE/Log/CakeLogInterface.php
  • Model(array)
    • 0CORE/Model/Model.php
    • 1CORE/Model/BehaviorCollection.php
    • 2CORE/Model/ConnectionManager.php
    • 3CORE/Model/ModelBehavior.php
  • Network(array)
    • 0CORE/Network/CakeRequest.php
    • 1CORE/Network/CakeResponse.php
  • Other(array)
    • 0CORE/bootstrap.php
    • 1CORE/basics.php
    • 2CORE/Core/App.php
    • 3CORE/Core/Configure.php
    • 4CORE/Core/CakePlugin.php
    • 5CORE/Event/CakeEventManager.php
    • 6CORE/Event/CakeEventListener.php
    • 7CORE/Event/CakeEvent.php
    • 8CORE/Core/CakeObject.php
  • Routing(array)
    • 0CORE/Routing/Dispatcher.php
    • 1CORE/Routing/Filter/AssetDispatcher.php
    • 2CORE/Routing/DispatcherFilter.php
    • 3CORE/Routing/Filter/CacheDispatcher.php
    • 4CORE/Routing/Router.php
    • 5CORE/Routing/Route/CakeRoute.php
  • Utility(array)
    • 0CORE/Utility/Hash.php
    • 1CORE/Utility/Debugger.php
    • 2CORE/Utility/CakeText.php
    • 3CORE/Utility/Inflector.php
    • 4CORE/Utility/ObjectCollection.php
    • 5CORE/Utility/ClassRegistry.php
  • View(array)
    • 0CORE/View/HelperCollection.php
• app(array)
  • Behavior(array)
    • 0APP/Model/Behavior/CachableBehavior.php
  • Config(array)
    • 0APP/Config/core.php
    • 1APP/Config/preview/bootstrap.php
    • 2APP/Config/bootstrap.php
    • 3APP/Config/languages.php
    • 4APP/Config/routes.php
    • 5APP/Config/database.php
    • 6APP/Config/preview/database.php
  • Controller(array)
    • 0APP/Controller/EuLegislatoryDocumentsController.php
    • 1APP/Controller/AppController.php
  • Model(array)
    • 0APP/Model/Menu.php
    • 1APP/Model/MenuLink.php
    • 2APP/Model/MenuLinkTranslation.php
    • 3APP/Model/AcademicProject.php
    • 4APP/Model/AppModel.php
    • 5APP/Model/Page.php
    • 6APP/Model/PageTranslation.php
    • 7APP/Model/EuLegislatoryDocument.php
    • 8APP/Model/PhdDocument.php
    • 9APP/Model/Newsletter.php
    • 10APP/Model/NewsletterTranslation.php
    • 11APP/Model/EuCaseLawDocument.php
    • 12APP/Model/Member.php
    • 13APP/Model/Event.php
    • 14APP/Model/EventTranslation.php
    • 15APP/Model/Publication.php
    • 16APP/Model/Link.php
    • 17APP/Model/LinkTranslation.php
  • Other(array)
    • 0APP/mysqli-overwrites.php
    • 1APP/Entity/AppEntity.php
    • 2APP/Entity/EventEntity.php
• plugins(array)
  • BoostCake(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0BoostCake/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Component(array)
      • 0BoostCake/Controller/Component/BoostCakeComponent.php
  • CakeAdmin(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0CakeAdmin/Config/routes.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0CakeAdmin/Lib/Routing/Route/AdminRoute.php
      • 1CakeAdmin/Lib/AdminConfig.php
      • 2CakeAdmin/Lib/Routing/Route/AdminBelongsToRoute.php
  • Contact(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Contact/Config/routes.php
  • DebugKit(array)
    • Component(array)
      • 0DebugKit/Controller/Component/ToolbarComponent.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0DebugKit/Lib/DebugMemory.php
      • 1DebugKit/Lib/Panel/HistoryPanel.php
      • 2DebugKit/Lib/DebugPanel.php
      • 3DebugKit/Lib/Panel/SessionPanel.php
      • 4DebugKit/Lib/Panel/RequestPanel.php
      • 5DebugKit/Lib/Panel/SqlLogPanel.php
      • 6DebugKit/Lib/Panel/TimerPanel.php
      • 7DebugKit/Lib/Panel/LogPanel.php
      • 8DebugKit/Lib/Log/Engine/DebugKitLog.php
      • 9DebugKit/Lib/Panel/VariablesPanel.php
      • 10DebugKit/Lib/Panel/EnvironmentPanel.php
      • 11DebugKit/Lib/Panel/IncludePanel.php
      • 12DebugKit/Lib/DebugTimer.php
      • 13DebugKit/Lib/DebugKitDebugger.php
  • Event(array)
    • Model(array)
      • 0Event/Model/PluginEvent.php
      • 1Event/Model/EventAppModel.php
      • 2Event/Model/PluginEventTranslation.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Event/Entity/PluginEventEntity.php
  • MailingService(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0MailingService/Config/routes.php
  • Media(array)
    • Component(array)
      • 0Media/Controller/Component/UploadComponent.php
  • Menu(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Menu/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Component(array)
      • 0Menu/Controller/Component/MenusComponent.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0Menu/Model/PluginMenu.php
      • 1Menu/Model/MenuAppModel.php
      • 2Menu/Model/PluginMenuLink.php
      • 3Menu/Model/PluginMenuLinkTranslation.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Menu/Lib/Tree.php
      • 1Menu/Lib/Vertex.php
  • Page(array)
    • Model(array)
      • 0Page/Model/PluginPage.php
      • 1Page/Model/PluginPageTranslation.php
  • Search(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Search/Config/routes.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0Search/Model/Behavior/SearchableBehavior.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0Search/Model/SearchDocument.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Search/Vendor/DoubleMetaPhone.php
  • Share(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0Share/Config/routes.php
  • System(array)
    • Config(array)
      • 0System/Config/bootstrap.php
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0System/Lib/I18n/Language.php
      • 1System/Lib/Routing/Resources.php
      • 2System/Lib/Routing/Route/I18nResourceRoute.php
      • 3System/Lib/Routing/Route/ResourceRoute.php
      • 4System/Entity/Entity.php
    • Model(array)
      • 0System/Model/EntityModel.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0System/Model/Behavior/TranslatableBehavior.php
      • 1System/Model/Behavior/ViewsBehavior.php
      • 2System/Model/Behavior/SluggableBehavior.php
  • Utils(array)
    • Plugin(array)
      • 0Utils/Lib/Routing/Filter/MaintenanceFilter.php
    • Behavior(array)
      • 0Utils/Model/Behavior/ArchivableBehavior.php