EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
- български (bg)
- Español (es)
- Čeština (cs)
- Deutsch (de)
- Eesti keel (et)
- Ελληνικά (el)
- English (en)
- Français (fr)
- Gaeilge (ga)
- Hrvatski (hr)
- Italiano (it)
- Latviešu valoda (lv)
- Lietuvių kalba (lt)
- Magyar (hu)
- Nederlands (nl)
- Polski (pl)
- Português (pt)
- Română (ro)
- Slovenčina (sk)
- Slovenščina (sl)
- Svenska (sv)
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
- EUR-Lex home
Smart borders: European Union entry/exit system
Summaries of EU Legislation
- Print this page
Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 establishing an entry/exit system to register the data of non-EU nationals crossing the EU’s external borders
Regulation (EU) 2017/2225 amending the Schengen Borders Code as regards the use of the entry/exit system
WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE REGULATIONS?
Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of controls at the external borders of the Schengen area by creating a centralised entry/exit system (EES) for non- European Union (EU) nationals crossing EU external borders for a short stay.
The EES will be an automated IT system for registering entries and exits of travellers from non-EU countries at the external borders. It will apply to those needing a short-stay visa and those who are from visa-exempt non-EU countries.
The EES will replace the current time-consuming system of manually stamping passports, which neither provides reliable data on border crossings, nor effectively detects overstayers. It will also help in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.
Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 amends several EU laws:
- the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (see summary );
- the regulations on the visa information system (VIS) and on the European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA);
- the Schengen Borders Code setting out the conditions, criteria and detailed rules for the crossing of the EU’s external borders.
The amendment of the Schengen Borders Code as regards the use of the EES is a separate legislative act , Regulation (EU) 2017/2225 .
Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 creates the EES , a common electronic system that:
- records and stores the date, time and place of entry and exit of non-EU nationals crossing the EU’s borders;
- automatically calculates the duration of authorised stay of such non-EU nationals, and generates alerts to EU Member States when the authorised stay has expired.
The system replaces the requirement to stamp non-EU nationals’ passports , which is applicable by all Member States.
- applies to travellers who cross the external borders of the Schengen area and are subject to a visa requirement, including those exempted from it and admitted for a short stay of up to 90 days in a 180-day period;
- will also record data on non-EU nationals whose entry for a short stay has been refused;
- will operate at the external borders of Member States that apply the Schengen acquis in full and at the borders of Member States that – at the time the system starts its operations – will not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full, but will have successfully gone through the Schengen evaluation procedure and obtained passive access to the VIS and full access to the Schengen information system .
Data storage and accessibility
The EES will store data on identity , travel documents and biometric data .
These data will be:
- kept for 3 years for those travellers who respect the short-stay rules , and 5 years for those who exceed their authorised period of stay;
- accessible to border authorities, visa-issuing authorities and those responsible for monitoring whether a non-EU national fulfils the conditions of entry or residence.
To prevent, detect or investigate terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences, designated law enforcement authorities and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) may make a request to consult EES data.
The EES comprises:
- a central system that will operate a computerised central database of biometric and alphanumeric data (a mix of letters and numbers);
- a national uniform interface in each participating country;
- a secure communication channel between the central systems of the EES and of the VIS;
- a secure and encrypted communication infrastructure between the EES central system and the national uniform interfaces (identical interfaces for all Member States connect their border infrastructures to the EES central system);
- a data repository to obtain customisable reports and statistics;
- a web service to enable non-EU nationals to verify their remaining authorised stay.
eu-LISA is responsible for developing and operating the system , including for adapting the VIS to ensure the interoperability between the EES and VIS central systems.
Amendment of the Schengen Borders Code
Regulation (EU) 2017/2225 amends the Schengen Borders Code as regards the use of the EES at the EU’s external borders as follows:
- the entry and exit of non-EU nationals are recorded directly in the EES;
- where provided for expressly by its national law, a Member State may continue to stamp non-EU nationals’ travel documents if they hold a residence permit or long-stay visa issued by that Member State;
- non-EU nationals must provide biometric data to create their individual EES file or for the carrying out border checks;
- the identity and nationality of non-EU nationals and the authenticity and validity of their travel document for crossing the border are verified ;
- Member States may set up national entry facilitation programmes on a voluntary basis for pre-vetted non-EU nationals;
- Member States may decide whether, and to what extent, to make use of technologies such as self-service systems for non-EU nationals to pre-enrol or update data in the EES, e-gates and automated border control systems , as long as an appropriate level of security is ensured, that their use is supervised and that border guards have access to the result of such border checks.
The European Commission has adopted a series of acts implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2226:
- Decision (EU) 2018/1547 – specifications for connecting the central access points to the EES and for a technical solution to facilitate the collection of data by Member States for generating statistics on the access to the EES data for law enforcement purposes;
- Decision (EU) 2018/1548 – rules for drawing up the list of persons identified as overstayers in the EES and the procedure to make that list available to Member States;
- Decision (EU) 2019/326 – measures for entering the data in the EES;
- Decision (EU) 2019/327 – measures for accessing the data in the EES;
- Decision (EU) 2019/328 – measures for keeping and accessing the logs in the EES;
- Decision (EU) 2019/329 – specifications for the quality, resolution and use of fingerprints and facial image for biometric verification and identification in the EES;
- Decision (EU) 2022/1337 – template for the provision of information to non-EU nationals about the processing of personal data in the EES;
- Regulation (EU) 2022/1409 – conditions for operating the web service provided for by Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 and its development and technical implementation.
FROM WHEN DO THE REGULATIONS APPLY?
Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 has applied since 29 December 2017, with the exception of rules on the start of operations date, which must be decided by the European Commission. From that date, Regulation (EU) 2017/2225 shall apply.
The EU EES is a priority initiative to modernise the EU’s external border management and help combat terrorism and serious crime, alongside other important border management and security files.
For further information, see:
- The entry/exit system (European Commission)
- Stronger and Smarter Borders for the European Union – the entry/exit system – factsheet (European Commission)
- Security Union – A Europe that protects – factsheet (European Commission).
Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011 (OJ L 327, 9.12.2017, pp. 20–82).
Successive amendments to Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 have been incorporated into the original document. This consolidated version is of documentary value only.
Regulation (EU) 2017/2225 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 as regards the use of the Entry/Exit System (OJ L 327, 9.12.2017, pp. 1–19).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1409 of 18 August 2022 concerning the detailed rules on the conditions for the operation of the web service and data protection and security rules applicable to the web service, as well as measures for the development and technical implementation of the web service and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1224 (OJ L 216, 19.8.2022, pp. 3–19).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/1337 of 28 July 2022 setting out the template for the provision of information to third-country nationals about the processing of personal data in the Entry/Exit System (OJ L 201, 1.8.2022, pp. 48–53).
Regulation (EU) 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems in the field of borders and visa and amending Regulations (EC) No 767/2008, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2017/2226, (EU) 2018/1240, (EU) 2018/1726 and (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decisions 2004/512/EC and 2008/633/JHA (OJ L 135, 22.5.2019, pp. 27–84).
See consolidated version .
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/326 of 25 February 2019 laying down measures for entering the data in the Entry/Exit System (EES) (OJ L 57, 26.2.2019, pp. 5–9).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/327 of 25 February 2019 laying down measures for accessing the data in the Entry/Exit System (EES) (OJ L 57, 26.2.2019, pp. 10–13).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/328 of 25 February 2019 laying down measures for keeping and accessing the logs in the Entry/Exit System (EES) (OJ L 57, 26.2.2019, pp. 14–17).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/329 of 25 February 2019 laying down the specifications for the quality, resolution and use of fingerprints and facial image for biometric verification and identification in the Entry/Exit System (EES) (OJ L 57, 26.2.2019, pp. 18–28).
Regulation (EU) 2018/1726 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), and amending Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 and Council Decision 2007/533/JHA and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, pp. 99–137).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1547 of 15 October 2018 laying down the specifications for the connection of the central access points to the Entry/Exit System (EES) and for a technical solution to facilitate the collection of data by Member States for the purpose of generating statistics on the access to the EES data for law enforcement purposes (OJ L 259, 16.10.2018, pp. 35–38).
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1548 of 15 October 2018 laying down measures for the establishment of the list of persons identified as overstayers in the Entry-Exit System (EES) and the procedure to make that list available to Member States (OJ L 259, 16.10.2018, pp. 39–42).
Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) and amending Regulations (EU) No 1077/2011, (EU) No 515/2014, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2016/1624 and (EU) 2017/2226 (OJ L 236, 19.9.2018, pp. 1–71).
Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (codification) (OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, pp. 1–52).
Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation) (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, pp. 60–81).
The Schengen acquis – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, pp. 19–62).
last update 31.08.2022
- Stack Overflow Public questions & answers
- Stack Overflow for Teams Where developers & technologists share private knowledge with coworkers
- Talent Build your employer brand
- Advertising Reach developers & technologists worldwide
- Labs The future of collective knowledge sharing
- About the company
Collectives™ on Stack Overflow
Find centralized, trusted content and collaborate around the technologies you use most.
Q&A for work
Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.
Get early access and see previews of new features.
REST - What exactly is meant by Uniform Interface?
Uniform interface The uniform interface constraint is fundamental to the design of any REST service. The uniform interface simplifies and decouples the architecture, which enables each part to evolve independently. The four guiding principles of this interface are: Identification of resources Individual resources are identified in requests, for example using URIs in web-based REST systems. The resources themselves are conceptually separate from the representations that are returned to the client. For example, the server may send data from its database as HTML, XML or JSON, none of which are the server's internal representation, and it is the same one resource regardless. Manipulation of resources through these representations When a client holds a representation of a resource, including any metadata attached, it has enough information to modify or delete the resource. Self-descriptive messages Each message includes enough information to describe how to process the message. For example, which parser to invoke may be specified by an Internet media type (previously known as a MIME type). Responses also explicitly indicate their cacheability. Hypermedia as the engine of application state (A.K.A. HATEOAS) Clients make state transitions only through actions that are dynamically identified within hypermedia by the server (e.g., by hyperlinks within hypertext). Except for simple fixed entry points to the application, a client does not assume that any particular action is available for any particular resources beyond those described in representations previously received from the server.
I'm listening to a lecture on the subject and the lecturer has said:
"When someone comes up to our API, if you are able to get a customer object and you know there are order objects, you should be able to get the order objects with the same pattern that you got the customer objects from. These URI's are going to look like each other."
This strikes me as wrong. It's not so much about what the URI's look like or that there is consistency as it is the way in which the URI's are used (identify resources, manipulate the resources through representations, self-descriptive messages, and hateoas).
I don't think that's what Uniform Interface means at all. What exactly does it mean?
- 5 I believe they mean that if you can get customer information through an endpoint routed as /api/customer then you could infer that to get order information you could do a request to /api/order – vesuvious Aug 7, 2014 at 0:57
- 1 @vesuvious That's exactly what I mean. That's wrong. REST API's are discovery API's not inference API's. The client should make no inferences. If it does, the client and server are too tightly coupled. – richard Aug 7, 2014 at 0:58
- 1 @JohnSaunders I'm not sure what you mean. REST API's are by definition discovery API's. – richard Aug 7, 2014 at 1:00
- 1 @jon I don't know what you mean. Your comments have been enigmatic. Am I being idiotic and have this whole thing completely wrong? I really am trying to understand this. If you don't know that's fine too. – richard Aug 7, 2014 at 1:46
- 6 The strict definition of RESTful architecture is that it must be discoverable...unfortunately the majority of APIs claim to be RESTful and fail this constraint. In the real world many APIs that are not strictly RESTful are called REST, because they use HTTP and JSON or XML and sometimes have params in URLs and sometimes use HTTP Verbs/Methods. Some people are using Hypermedia API as a term to indicate an API is truly RESTful. to @JohnSaunders you should look at github's api to see a discoverable API – Chris DaMour Aug 11, 2014 at 17:09
4 Answers 4
Using interfaces to decouple classes from the implementation of their dependencies is a pretty old concept. In REST you use the same concept to decouple the client from the implementation of the REST service. In order to define such an interface (a contract between the client and the service), you have to use standards. This is because if you want an internet size network of REST services, you have to enforce global concepts, like standards to make them understand each other.
Identification of resources - You use the URI (IRI) standard to identify a resource. In this case, a resource is a web document.
Manipulation of resources through these representations - You use the HTTP standard to describe communication. So for example GET means that you want to retrieve data about the URI-identified resource. You can describe an operation with an HTTP method and a URI.
Self-descriptive messages - You use standard MIME types and (standard) RDF vocabs to make messages self-descriptive. So the client can find the data by checking the semantics, and it doesn't have to know the application-specific data structure the service uses.
Hypermedia as the engine of application state (a.k.a. HATEOAS) - You use hyperlinks and possibly URI templates to decouple the client from the application-specific URI structure. You can annotate these hyperlinks with semantics e.g. IANA link relations , so the client will understand what they mean.
- 5 Nice Explanation in simple terms – user2323308 Sep 30, 2014 at 8:56
- 8 Because it is simple. :-) – inf3rno Sep 30, 2014 at 12:21
- 3 of course I've heard of interfaces and I'm clear on the concepts of decoupling implementation through contracts (interfaces). I think what I was missing was that Uniform Interface just meant those 4 constraints (identification of resources, manipulation through representations, self-descriptive messages, and hateos). – richard Jun 9, 2016 at 18:36
- 2 "You can describe an operation with a HTTP method and an URI." Only if the URI is HTML-based. (mailto's are URIs that are not HTML-based - they are mailto based.) – Jossie Calderon Jun 22, 2016 at 8:53
- 3 where is the Uniform Interface? You described other principles but asker looking for Uniform Interface... – nuriselcuk Jun 24, 2019 at 7:12
The Uniform Interface constraint (that any ReSTful API should comply with) suggests that server responses, in addition to containing data, should also announce available actions and resources.
In chapter 5 ("Reprensational State Transfer") of his dissertation, Roy Fielding states that the aim of using uniform interfaces is to:
ease and improve global architecture and the visibility of interactions
In other words, querying resources should allow the client to request other actions and resources without knowing them in advance .
The JSON-API specs ( jsonapi.org ) offer a good example in the form of a JSON response to an (hypothetical) HTTP GET request on http://example.com/articles :
Just by analysing this single response, a client knows:
- What entities were queried ("articles" in this example);
- How these entities are structured (articles have fields: id , title , author , comments );
- How to retrieve related entities (i.e. the author and the comments );
- That there are more entities of type "articles" ( 10 , based on current response length and pagination links).
For those passionate about the topic, I strongly recommend reading Roy Thomas Fielding's dissertation !
Your question is somewhat broad, you seem to be asking for a restatement of the definitions you have. Are you looking for examples or do you not understand somethings specifically stated.
I agree that the line:
These URI's are going to look like each other
is fundamentally wrong. URIs needn't look anything like each other for the Uniform interface constraint to be met. What needs to be present is a uniform way to discover the URIs that identify the resources. This uniform way is unique to each message type, and there must be some agreed upon format. For example in HTML one document resource links to another via a simple tag:
HTTP servers return html as a text/html resource type which browsers have an agreed upon way of parsing. The anchor tag is the hypermedia control (HATEOAS) that has the unique identifier for the related resource.
The only point that wasn't covered was manipulation. HTML has another awesome example of this, the form tag:
again, browser know how to interpret this meta information to define a representation of the resource acted upon at the URI. Unfortunately HTML only lets you GET and POST for verbs...
more commonly in a JOSN based service, when you retrieve a Person resource, it's easy to manipulate that representation and then PUT or PATCH it right back to it's canonical URL. No pre-existing knowledge of the resource is needed to modify it. Now when we write client code we get all wrapped up with the idea that we do in fact need to know the shape before we consume it...but that really is just to make our parsers efficient and easy. We could make parsers that analyze the semantic meaning of each part of a resource and modify it by interpreting the intent of the modification. IE: a command of make the person 10 years older would parse the resource looking for the age, identify the age, and then add 10 years to that value, then send that resource back to the server. Is it easier to have code that expects the age to be at a JSON path of $.age? absolutely...but it's not specifically necessary.
- Thanks Chris. I'm don't quite understand what you mean though. What is the "interface" that needs to be uniform? I was thinking that it was the protocol, i.e. http. But it sounds like you are saying that also the responses must be uniform, i.e. an agreed upon information representation format. But "uniform interface between components" sounds to me like it's just the protocol that needs to be uniform. What do you think? – richard Aug 12, 2014 at 7:29
- 3 i think you are hearing "uniform interface" and thinking an interface that's uniform. He just used the term "uniform interface" as a grouping concept of the 4 sub constraints: Identification of resources, Manipulation of resources through these representations, Self-descriptive messages, HATEOAS. Anything that follows the 4 constraints is a "uniform interface". Don't break the term apart for analysis, just accept it as is. HTTP is a good component of implementation because it has URLs and hyper text baked in – Chris DaMour Aug 12, 2014 at 17:47
Ok I think I understand what it means.
From Fieldings dissertation:
The central feature that distinguishes the REST architectural style from other network-based styles is its emphasis on a uniform interface between components (Figure 5-6). By applying the software engineering principle of generality to the component interface, the overall system architecture is simplified and the visibility of interactions is improved.
He's saying that the interface between components must be the same. Ie. between client and server and any intermediaries, all of which are components.
- 1 Yet, I don't recall seeing where he states how previous architectures failed to have a uniform interface between components. I've worked on many systems in which one SOAP service called upon the features of another SOAP service in order to perform its duties. I believe that's called "SOA". – John Saunders Aug 7, 2014 at 1:45
- Well Rest obviously shares attributes of other architecture styles etc. it's not all novel and new. Also, soap and rest are not mutually exclusive. A restful service could do so with soap (from what I understand). I think the uniform interface though, is unique in that it is a constraint, a requirement of rest, unlike other architectural styles. What I believe he means is "don't martial data to other interfaces, use the same interface for all participating components." – richard Aug 7, 2014 at 1:50
- 1 Most SOAP services missed HATEOAS. They all missed Identifications of resources. You always had to invoke methods on remote objects in SOAP to retrieve anything. You never retrieved them directly. Self messaging was not possible, the WSDL was always needed. That's not to say WSDLs were bad or hard to use...they just broke a constraint of a "Uniform Interface" – Chris DaMour Aug 12, 2014 at 17:50
- @ChrisDaMour - isn't the WSDL an interface standard in itself? i.e. a WSDL is written according to a standard, and therefore a client can read it to understand the actions available on the server. Therefore there is no coupling... The server provides a WSDL at an expected endpoint, and the client can therefore couple with the server. Why is this not a uniform interface? – Zach Smith Aug 30, 2019 at 10:10
- Because the result of the soap action isn’t another wsdl like thing that can be acted upon. Also all implementations of soap clients I’m familiar with don’t retrieve the wsdl at runtime, instead they do it at client time. I could probably be convinced this is a limitation of client implementation , but This is inherently unrestful, triggered by the fact that soap actions return static messages and not resources with further hypermedia controls. A lot of “rest” clients do this to, jump to known urls instead of discovering actions from a root resource at runtime – Chris DaMour Aug 31, 2019 at 14:30
Sign up or log in, post as a guest.
Required, but never shown
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged rest definition uniform-interface or ask your own question .
- The Overflow Blog
- Like Python++ for AI developers
- Being creative with math: The immersive artist who traded a sketchpad for a...
- Featured on Meta
- Alpha test for short survey in banner ad slots starting on week of September...
- What should be next for community events?
- OverflowAI Search is now available for alpha testing (September 13, 2023)
- Temporary policy: Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) is banned
- Expanding Discussions: Let's talk about curation
- Update on Collectives and Discussions
Hot Network Questions
- How to measure inrush current over 3 minutes
- Why do native speakers sometimes use present continuous when it seems like it should be present simple?
- Is it possible to redefine the limit operator to print Lim, not lim?
- What attracted Abimelech to an old woman in her 80s or 90s?
- How to analyze/spell this chord progression
- unphysical voltage in spice simulation
- Can you "open" RAW camera files?
- Why is this domain wrong?
- Why would people join a bloc party?
- Expanding functions with poles in QFT Calculation
- History of right hand rule
- I (rev)?(pal)? the source code, you (rev)?(pal)? the input!
- Probability Puzzle from a Quant Interview
- Are some congruence subgroups better than others?
- A Trivial Pursuit #13 (Geography 3/4): Things Fall Apart
- How do I intentionally fly into turbulence?
- Does a hexblood have all of the stated properties of a hag's influence?
- How can Ural Airlines fly an A320 from an unpaved field after an emergency landing?
- general principles of piercing the protective cover of unfrozen microwave ready meals
- Make custard firmer
- Do you win a Numeric Mahjong?
- What do we know about Andy Kaufman's SNL audition?
- Security risks in running a full node on my personal computer that I use for banking, work, etc
- Is the luggage trolley essential to get through Platform Nine and Three-Quarters?
- Dress Shirts
- Enhanced Visibility
- Dress Slacks
- Butcher Coats & Wraps
- Lab & Counter Coats
- Chef/Cook Pants
- Cook Shirts
- Coveralls and Overalls
- Image Apparel Programs
- Casual Wovens
- Dress Shirts & Blouses
- Pants, Shorts & Skirts
- Suits & Suit Separates
- Security & Transit
- Men's Work Shirts
- Men's Polo Shirts
- Men's T-Shirts
- Men's Work Pants
- Men's Carpenter Jeans
- Men's Shorts
- Men's Outerwear
- Culinary Shirts
- Culinary Pants
- Excel FR® ComforTouch®
- Nomex® IIIA
Your shopping cart is empty!
Save 10% on Orders over $100 using code NATIONAL
Red Kap Polo Collection
Color-block polos, flex series polos, spun polyester polos, twill polos.
Every Day Low Prices
as low as $12.51
The BEST Prices on Hardworking Pants
some as low as $18.46
Jackets & Coats
Keeping you Warm
starting at $37.75
OEM Uniform Program
- Edwards Garment
- Chef Designs
- Horace Small
Receive Discounts, Coupon Codes and Sales Information
- ETIAS Application
- U.S. ETIAS Requirements
- Study in Europe
- Work in Europe
What is the European Entry-Exit-System (EES)?
The Entry-Exit-System (EES) is a European-wide IT system that will help EU countries manage the arrival and departure of third-country nationals.
The EES is part of the EU’s revised Smart Borders Package. It is expected to be operational from 2024.
This article explains what the EES is and how it will be used, together with the new ETIAS travel authorization, to improve Schengen border management and security .
EES Registers the Entry and Exit of Non-EU Citizens
EES is the electronic infrastructure used to register third-country nationals, including Americans , when they cross an external Schengen Area border.
EES replaces manual passport stamps making Schengen border crossings faster and more efficient. The electronic system registers the following information:
- Traveler’s details
- Date and place of entry/exit
Based on this information, EES can identify travelers who have overstayed their visa or visa-free stay (with ETIAS from 2024).
Does the Entry/Exit System Apply to Americans?
The European Entry/Exit System applies to all short-stay visitors from non-EU countries.
- Short-stay visa holders
- Visa-exempt travelers
The system checks that the non-EU national has not already used all the days in Europe permitted with their visa or visa exemption.
US citizens can visit the Schengen Area without a visa for up to 90 days . The EES detects if an American national attempts to spend more than the permitted 90 days.
This will allow EU member states to prevent irregular migration and reduce security risks.
How Will the EES Work?
The system itself operates in two layers. The first is a Schengen-wide Central System with the second comprising a state-exclusive National Uniform Interface (NUI) . Through the NUI, each member state will be responsible for securely updating information on the central database.
The EES also connects to the EU’s Visa Information Service (VIS) database which holds the electronic data of all EU visas and ETIAS that have been issued. These are joined by a Secure Communications Channel ensuring that EES does not allow visitors to enter with expired visas or visa waivers and to notify authorities of those who have overstayed.
What Information Does EES Register?
EES registers a traveler’s data each time they cross an EU external border.
The Entry/Exit System registers:
- Facial image
- Name and surname
- Type of travel document
- Place of entry and exit
- Date of entry and exit
Only visa-exempt travelers. Other travelers have their fingerprints registered when applying for a visa.
The system also registers any refused entries.
Fundamental rights and data protection laws are respected. Data is only accessible to authorized officials .
What are the Goals of the Entry/Exit System?
The objectives of Europe`s new Entry/Exit System are to:
- Provide travelers with exact information about how long they can stay in Europe .
- Reduce border waiting times thanks to automated passport control.
- Remove the need for time-consuming passport stamps.
- Increase safety across the EU by supporting the identification of criminal activity.
- Identify travelers overstaying their visas or visa waiver.
- Prevent cases of document and identity fraud .
How the EES will improve border crossings for American visitors
As mentioned above, one of the advantages of the EES will be to reduce the time spent waiting at border crossings.
The border crossing procedure with EES is as follows:
- Check whether the data is recorded in EES and, if not, upload it.
- Go to the border control lane, the officer will already have received your information.
- Passport officers may ask additional questions before granting or denying entry.
Automation helps speed up border processes and improve the passenger experience.
Which European Organization Manages EES?
The management of EES will be fully operated by eu-LISA. This is the EU’s IT agency and is also responsible for managing EURODAC, SIS, VIS, and other large-scale, pan-European informational databases.
Its main function is to ensure that all the shared data between EU countries and Schengen members remains fully secure and encrypted.
Other EU Border Management Systems
There are currently 3 other main information systems used at EU borders:
- Schengen Information System (SIS)
- Visa Information System (VIS)
- European Asylum Dactyloscopy Database (EURODAC)
A fourth system will be added in 2024, the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS). ETIAS will only apply to third-country nationals who do not need a visa to travel to Europe for short stays.
Using this system, US citizens and other visa-free travelers will register their details before traveling to the European Schengen Area. ETIAS will be mandatory to travel to Europe without a visa.
SIS, VIS, and Eurodac – The Security System of the Schengen Zone
ETIAS: European Visa Waiver for Americans Delayed Until 2024
What Is the eu-LISA? How Is It Related to ETIAS?
By using our website you accept our Cookies Policy. Click here to know more. I agree
- Portuguese English
- English Portuguese
- English French
- English Spanish
- English German
- English Italian
- English Romanian
- English Dutch
- English Polish
- English Greek
- English Danish
- English Swedish
- English Finnish
- English Irish
- English Maltese
- English Slovenian
- English Lithuanian
- English Estonian
- English Slovak
- English Hungarian
- English Latvian
- English Bulgarian
- English Czech
- English Croatian
- More languages
Portuguese - English dictionary
Interface uniforme nacional, national uniform interface.
a National Uniform Interface in each Member State connecting the Central System and the national infrastructures;
a national uniform interface in each Member State that connects the central system and the national infrastructures
Portuguese synonyms and related terms, código de identificação do utilizador da rede, superfície crítica, superfície de separação, frente de sublimação, superfície de contacto, portuguese - english examples, abordagem uniforme, formato uniforme, aceleração uniforme, escorrimento uniforme, visto uniforme, camada uniforme, distribuição uniforme, referência uniforme, codificação uniforme, revestimento uniforme, frete uniforme, terra uniforme, solo uniforme, direito uniforme, título uniforme, difusão uniforme, isolamento uniforme, granulometria uniforme, interpretação uniforme, espetro uniforme, difusor uniforme, montagem uniforme, proteção uniforme, resposta uniforme, iluminação uniforme, apoio uniforme, coqueificação uniforme, voo uniforme, modelo uniforme, quantificação uniforme, laçada uniforme, uniforme militar, torção uniforme, corrosão uniforme, distribuição uniforme contínua, interface usb, interface contradirecional, interface terminal, interface z, interface scsi, interface midi, interface humana, interface física, interface centronics, interface paralela, interface u, interface v1, interface físico, interface série, interface técnica, interface comum, interface polivalente, interface terrestre, interface multissensorial, interface did, interface convivial, interface gráfica, interface s0, interface híbrida, interface s, interface a+, interface eletromagnética, interface linguística, interface aéreo, interface hdb3, interface periférico, interface normalizada, interface interoperável, interface v6, interface digital, interface codirecional, interface eia, interface rs-232, interface oceano-ar, interface mar-ar, interface utilizador/rede, interface investigação-valorização.
Top queries Portuguese : 1-200 , -1k , -2k , -3k , -4k , -5k , -7k , -10k , -20k , -40k , -100k , -200k ,
Top queries English : 1-200 , -1k , -2k , -3k , -4k , -5k , -7k , -10k , -20k , -40k , -100k , -200k , -500k ,
Traduction Translation Traducción Übersetzung Tradução Traduzione Traducere Vertaling Tłumaczenie Mετάφραση Oversættelse Översättning Käännös Aistriúchán Traduzzjoni Prevajanje Vertimas Tõlge Preklad Fordítás Tulkojumi Превод Překlad Prijevod 翻訳 번역 翻译 Перевод
- Digital Rights
- Platform Governance
- Digital State
- Advisory Board
- Submit your event
- Editorial team
- The Digi-Con network
- Metaverse Exhibition
Yes, it should: a partial (legal) argument for unification in machine learning, chatgpt and lawful bases for training ai: a blended approach, why the uk artificial intelligence whitepaper could erode existing legal protections.
The new lantern laws
In the 18 th century, lantern laws in New York City demanded that Black, mixed-race, and Indigenous enslaved people carry candle lanterns with them if they walked around the city after sunset and without the company of a white person. 1 Claudia Garcia-Rojas, ‘ The Surveillance of Blackness: From the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade to Contemporary Surveillance Technologies ’ ( Truthout , 3 March 2016). Over the last few years, there has been a resurgence of this colonialist practice where minority communities are constantly being targeted and tracked through the use of technology, rather than a lantern.
The Entry-Exit System: smarter and more effective?
The deployment of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) within a range of different technologies -both public and private-oriented- is becoming feasible due to technological development and breakthroughs. Individuals tend to identify themselves through the use of FRT on their smartphones. In addition, governments and law enforcement authorities have massively implemented FRT as a form of public surveillance (whether sufficiently ethical or not). This has been true not only for autocratic regimes such as the Chinese, which is targeting and tracking the movements of minorities , but also in the West, i.e., the United States and the European Union where several law enforcement authorities have introduced this technology into their day-to-day tasks.
The same applies for the European Union’s strategy to materialise its ‘ Smart Borders Package ’. A set of measures have been put together to facilitate the control and management of the external borders of the Union, namely through the implementation of the Entry/Exit System ( EES System ) since September 2022 and the European Travel Information and Authorisation System ( ETIAS System ) starting from May 2023. However, under the cover of the fight against irregular migration, these systems aim to create one of the largest databases within the Union storing biometric data on third-country nationals.
According to the EES System’s Inception Impact Assessment , the total number of border crossings in 2025 is forecasted at 887 million of which one third are expected to be third-country nationals. Thus, around 76 million third-country nationals will cross the external borders of the Union per year by 2025.
For the specific case of the EES System, the deployment of FRT will be effective within the 1800 Member States’ external border crossing points of the Schengen Area where facial images will be captured of every third-country national who crosses the border. This does not mean that a static image will be stored as a record within a larger database. Facial Recognition Technology works in four different steps. First, it captures the facial characteristics of each individual through a state-of-the-art live camera. Then, out of that image, the technology extracts the unique facial data of the individual, which is the record stored in the database alongside the third-country national’s personal data, i.e., name, date of birth or nationality.
Stemming from the existing record of an individual, the algorithm running on the Facial Recognition Technology can compare those unique facial characteristics to other existing databases. However, access to the database will be restricted to the particular objectives provided by law. For the particular case of the EES System, law enforcement authorities and control and border management authorities can access the records stored within it for two particular reasons: i) the facilitation, effectiveness, and speediness of border management and control; and ii) the investigation, prosecution and conviction of terrorist and serious criminal offences committed within the Union.
eu-LISA 2 Stands for European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice. will operate the EES computerised central database of biometric and alphanumeric data, whereas Member States will access their National Uniform Interface from their own national border infrastructure to access the EES records. In fact, Member State border control authorities will be at the forefront of the EES System’s implementation. In addition, the EES central database is mandated to be interoperable with other similar systems, such as the central Visa Information System.
On the basis of lawful entry and access to the database, results will be produced by the algorithm running on FRT. However, this technology does not produce definite results: it works on the basis of probabilities. For instance, if a law enforcement officer looks to match an image obtained from CCTV to the existing Entry-Exit database on third-country nationals, the machine-learning algorithm will produce a hit or not match those two identities. However, that result does not mean those identities, in reality, are one and the same. Instead, it implies there is a given likelihood that those individuals do match, but there is also a possibility that the characteristics do not match at all and belong to different people altogether. These imprecise results will be the basis of decisions involving border crossings (and a possible entry refusal). In sum, those decisions can be based on inaccurate results based on statistical probabilities. In this sense, the materialisation of those errors is identified as a false positive, i.e., misidentifying a person due to the fact that the algorithm goes beyond its actual content.
The human bias incorporated into Facial Recognition Technology
Aside from its embedded characteristics, FRT is not yet a fully-fledged technology. Although we tend to think the introduction of technology will always incorporate an automated component to decision-making, the contrary seems to be true in the case of FRT. This technology is built and trained by humans. Thus, human bias is innately (and maybe unwillingly) integrated into the algorithm, which works to produce results through FRT. For instance, if the engineer designing the algorithm trains it with more facial characteristics of males, the algorithm will use their phenotypes as a blueprint for its functioning.
Research conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology informed on the performance of different algorithms across the World and showed that even the most developed and advanced Facial Recognition Technology comes foul when it comes to identifying phenotypes other than those predominantly present within their training databases. In the case of those algorithms developed within the United States and Europe, white males are overrepresented within the training databases which serve to test out their matching capabilities with other images. Therefore, when it comes to identifying individuals from a different race or gender identity, FRT tends to be much more imprecise and produces higher false-positive rates for women, Black and LGTBQ+ communities. The same applies to algorithms developed in Asia, insofar as Asian males are overrepresented within their training databases and especially discriminate against minorities, as well as in relation to the previous communities.
If we bear the human bias embedded within FRT algorithms, we can also fathom the real and cognisable impact that will be produced by high numbers to the detriment of third-country nationals in terms of their intrinsic fundamental rights, namely with relation to the right to non-discrimination enshrined in article 21 of the Charter. As much as EU citizens have the right not to suffer discrimination on the basis of their race, colour, or sex, the same should be applicable to third-country nationals. However, when the EES System enters the scene, the technical flaws of FRT directly influence the outcome of the results produced through its implementation.
On top of that, I consider the European Commission has come short of offering a real solution to counteract the deficiencies of algorithms. In fact, it has only published the specifications to ensure that FRT is correctly implemented. For the particular case of false positives, it has imposed obligations on Member States to ensure that only a limited rate of misidentifications is admissible (0.1 per cent). However, if we bring these percentages to the EES System’s real dimension (295 million people affected), that means that the European Commission sanctions that 295,000 third-country nationals are misidentified, both for law enforcement and border control tasks. On top of that, these specifications do not provide further guidance to Member State authorities acting on external crossing border points, although they may be heavily influenced by equivocal results produced by FRT. Not one provision is dedicated to instructing border authorities against the automatic translation of these results to refusal to entry decisions, irrespective of the Court of Justice’s position in Schwarz (para. 44). Therefore, in my opinion, the EES System gives leeway to an unresolved interference between the fundamental right not to suffer discrimination and the right to liberty and security provided by its legal basis. All in all, the exterior borders of the Union will not sufficiently be secured if, by doing that, serious concerns on the exercise of the rest of fundamental rights are not guaranteed for third-country nationals, according to the mandatory applicable legal test under article 52(1) of the Charter. We cannot strive to gain a smarter border system if it comes at the cost of decimating fundamental rights by imposing a segmentary and fragmented understanding of Facial Recognition Technology on the officials managing its results and its drawbacks.
Alba Ribera Martínez, ‘The new lantern laws: the mainstream bias of facial recognition technology’ ( The Digital Constitutionalist , 07 July 2022) < https://digi-con.org/the-new-lantern-laws >
- 1 Claudia Garcia-Rojas, ‘ The Surveillance of Blackness: From the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade to Contemporary Surveillance Technologies ’ ( Truthout , 3 March 2016).
- 2 Stands for European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice.
Alba Ribera Martínez
- Alba Ribera Martínez #molongui-disabled-link The Debiasing Paradox: What If Algorithms Do Not Deviate from Human Nature
- artificial intelligence
- border control
- European Union
- facial recognition
NUI Interconnection Webinar kicks-off Member State training for 2021
Within the framework of EES-related training and its national uniform interface (NUI) aspects, eu-LISA delivered a webinar titled "NUI Interconnection Webinar" on the 15th January 2021. Continuing the trend of online courses, as opposed to face-to-face training, the first event of the year attracted 109 participants.
The aim of this webinar was to follow up and build on the results of the NUI Interconnection webinar, held in the last quarter of 2020, with a focus on the NUI connection to Member State infrastructure, and to provide additional clarifications as well as direct replies via an interactive Q&A session. The target group of the webinar was Data Centre Managers and Network Managers involved in the management of JHA-related IT systems.
During the online event, participants were given an introduction to the purpose of NUI, discussed inter NUI connection issues, talked about connectivity to National Infrastructure Network and, as mentioned above, took part in an in-depth Q&A session.
Information about Member State training, tailored and delivered by eu-LISA, can be found in the dedicated MS training section of our website.
Smart Borders Solutions
Are you prepared for the EES deadline?
The EU Entry/Exit System regulation deadline is rapidly looming on the horizon. Each Schengen member state must implement solutions to manage entry and exit movements across air, land and sea.
With biometric and biographic identification of third-country nationals being a requirement, how will border authorities enhance border security while optimizing screening efficiency?
By working with Vision-Box’s Smart Borders solutions, border authorities will be able to:
- Enhance border clearance efficiency by implementing intuitive and secure traveller experiences rooted on solutions designed for ergonomic transit;
- Improve communication and intelligence sharing between all stakeholders, supported by the Orchestra Identity Management Platform;
- Optimise resources and traveller throughput through the orchestration of real-time multi-source data streams thus enhancing decision-making.
Learn more about our Smart Borders Solutions for Air, Land and Sea
Challenges & opportunities.
White Paper regarding Challenges & Opportunities for EU Smart Borders .
Read more >>
Brochure & Portfolio
The complete Smart Borders Solutions Portfolio.
Insight – EES Success Factors
Explore the importance of learning from failure as a critical success factor.
Vision-Box’s Orchestra Identity Management Platform is the central element that supports all the functionalities of our EES solutions. Orchestra provides robust and efficient Identity Data Management, real-time intelligence and end-to-end travel l er-centric ecosystems management that allows a secure and facilitated Schengen border crossing while supporting rigorous risk-management controls.
Given its modular API based set of functions, the platform easily integrates with other systems such as the National Uniform Interface (NUI), being the central component managing the information coming from the border crossing points to the EU central level.
Thanks to its open and flexible architecture, the platform is scalable and easily adjustable to meet current/future national/international workflows, rules, processes and regulation policies.
Team Member Name
Team member bio information.
Translation of "nui" into English
Sample translated sentence: () FMI – nepomični objekt s osobljem, FNP – nepomični neproizvodni objekt, FPI – plutajući proizvodni objekt, NUI – (najčešće) nenadgledani objekt. ↔ () FMI — Fixed, manned installation; FNP — Fixed, non-production installation; FPI — Floating production installation; NUI — (Normally) Un-attended installation
"nui" in croatian - english dictionary.
Currently we have no translations for nui in the dictionary, maybe you can add one? Make sure to check automatic translation, translation memory or indirect translations.
Translations of "nui" into English in sentences, translation memory
The schengen entry/exit system: biometrics to facilitate smart borders.
Because of Europe's migratory pressures and terrorist attacks over the last few years, border management has become a priority for the European Commission.
The Visa Information System (VIS) has been operational since 2015 in Member State consulates, and its consultation is now compulsory for visa-holders entering the Schengen area.
Besides, since February 2013, the concept of Smart Borders has been introduced. It's an ambitious package of legislative measures drawn up in consultation with the European Parliament.
The new EES System is to be operational at the end of 2023
Adopted and then signed on 30 November 2017 by the European Council, it will be used in conjunction with the European Passenger Name Record (PNR) Directive, which, from 25 May 2018, collects data on air passengers.
The EES is now scheduled to become functional in November 2023.
Based on the principle that the majority of visitors are "bona fide," the EES will radically change the Schengen Borders Code with the double objective of:
- making borders smart by automating checks and controls on legitimate visitors while strengthening methods for combating irregular migration
- creating a central register of cross-border movements .
In other words, external border management is being modernised.
Because it improves the quality and efficiency of checks and controls in the Schengen area, the EES's common database should help reinforce homeland security and the fight against terrorism and serious crime.
Systematic identification of people 'overstaying' in the Schengen area is one of its significant challenges.
We will see why facial biometrics, in particular, is the technical winner of the EES initiative, as is currently the case, and no longer just in airports but also in all ports of entry.
In this web report, we will examine the following six topics:
- What the Entry-Exit System is
- How the 2006 Schengen Borders Code is impacted
- How its access is highly regulated
- Why facial biometrics becomes key for the EES
- How EES contributes to the fight against identity fraud
- Where Thales fits in the picture.
Let's dig in.
EES: a robust prevention and detection mechanism
Criminal activities such as human trafficking, migrant smuggling, and trafficking of goods are made possible by illegal border crossings.
They are primarily facilitated by the absence of any system for recording entry/exit movements in Europe.
Yes, you read that right.
And the route to identity fraud is a well-travelled one: "standard" checks on entering the Schengen area, followed by the destruction of identity documents to commit malevolent acts, knowing that authentication without an ID is impossible.
So the good news is that although the EES is aimed at "bona fide" visitors, in the long term, the system will be a powerful means of preventing and detecting terrorist activities or other serious criminal offences.
The data stored in the new register for five years – including for people turned back at borders – mainly consists of the following:
- passport numbers,
- Four fingerprints
- and photos.
It will be accessible to the border and visa-granting authorities and Europol.
The system will be available to investigating authorities to allow consultation of cross-border movements and access to travel history data .
All of this will be carried out with the strictest respect for the person's human dignity and integrity.
The mechanism is very clear the competent authorities cannot discriminate against persons based on sex, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion.
Investigations must also not discriminate against membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation.
Reappraisal of the Schengen Borders Code
Given the expected growth in Third Country Nationals visiting the Schengen area (887M by 2025), the challenge is now to make border checks faster and simpler.
This is a particularly ambitious initiative. It will require a reappraisal of the famous Schengen Borders Code , which requires thorough checks made manually by Member State authorities at entry and exit points without possible automation.
Besides, the Schengen Borders Code has no provisions on the recording of cross-border movements. The current procedure requires only that passports be stamped with entry and exit dates.
This is the sole method available to border guards when calculating whether a right to stay has been exceeded.
Just think about it.
It's difficult when stamps are poorly printed and placed randomly throughout the passport book. Besides, a stamp can be counterfeited, and no electronic record exists in any database.
Another problem is that regular visitors and people living near borders must replace their passports every 2 to 3 months because they run out of space for new stamps!
Let's admit it.
The whole process is archaic, given the potential offered by information technologies.
The 2013 package consisted of three proposals:
- Creation of an automated Entry/Exit System (EES)
- A Registered Traveler Program (RTP) allows pre-vetted regular visitors to benefit from the facilitation of border checks.
- Amendment of the Schengen Borders Code
Withdrawal of the RTP initiative
Proving to be too complex to implement in the 28 Member States, the RTP initiative was eventually withdrawn and replaced by an ambitious Entry/Exit System (EES) for short-stay visitors (no more than 90 days in any period of 180 days).
The final outlay is well below that initially forecast by the Commission in 2013. Instead of the estimated billion euros, including an RTP component, the revised proposal of a single EES will cost "only" €480 million, as the EES regulation proposal singled out.
This ambitious initiative is being implemented after a technical study conducted in 2014, followed by a prototyping phase led by the eEU-LISA agency in 2015. This resulted in the withdrawal of the RTP project and a switch of focus to the EES program.
Centralised architecture managed by eu-LISA
The essential body of the EES is eu-LISA , the European agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems, headquartered in Tallinn, with an active site in Strasbourg and a backup site in Sankt Johann Im Pongau (Austria).
The agency will be responsible for the following four tasks:
- Development of the central system
- Implementation of a National Uniform Interface (NUI) in each Member State
- Secure communication between the EES and VIS central systems
- Communication infrastructure between the terminal system and National Uniform Interfaces.
Each Member State will be responsible for the organisation, management, operation, and maintenance of its existing national border infrastructure and connection to the EES.
Optimised border management
All Third Country Nationals will be treated equally with the new mechanism, whether or visa-exempt.
Therefore, the Member States will identify any irregular migrant or visitor crossing borders illegally and facilitate their expulsion if applicable.
The process can be assisted or automated; for instance, visitors could authenticate themselves at a self-service terminal under the supervision of a border guard, which will display the following information:
- Date, time, and border crossing point, in replacement of manual stamps
- Notification of refusal of entry, if applicable
- Maximum authorised length of stay
- Notification of overstay, if applicable
For the authorities of Member States, this is a revolutionary step up from the current system's inadequacies.
The possibility of compiling robust statistics is already being anticipated, as is better management of granting or refusal of visas based on cross-border movements, in particular through information such as:
- Overstays per country
- History of cross-border movements per country
The Visa Information System (VIS) has been operational since 2015
EES: highly regulated access
But one thing's for sure.
Access to the EES is highly regulated.
Each Member State must notify eu-LISA of the law enforcement agencies authorised to consult data to prevent, detect, or investigate terrorist offences and other serious crimes.
Europol , which plays a crucial role in crime prevention, will be included in the law enforcement agencies authorised to access the system within the framework of its tasks.
In contrast, EES data cannot be transferred or made available to any third country , international organisation, or private entity established in or outside the European Union.
Of course, in the case of investigations to identify a Third Country National and prevent or detect terrorist offences, exceptions may be made.
Proportionality and privacy
Against a legislative backdrop where privacy is held as a major priority, the volume of personal data recorded in the EES will be significantly reduced, i.e., 26 data items instead of the 36 initially planned in 2013.
The mechanism will be negotiated between the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the national authorities responsible for applying the new regulation.
The data collected will be limited to minimum information such as last name, first name, travel document, visa references, a facial image, and four fingerprints.
The date, time, and border check location will be recorded for each visit. This data will be stored for five years and not the 181 days as proposed in 2013.
This will allow border guards and consular posts to analyse applicants' travel history when issuing new visas.
EES: privacy by design
The European Commission proposal has been drawn up based on "privacy by design" principles.
From a legal standpoint, the proposal concerns the right to protection of personal data; in other words, the data collected and stored and its prevention period are strictly limited to what is necessary for the system to function and meet its objectives.
The EES will be a centralised system through which the Member States cooperate, creating a common architecture and operating rules.
Given the need for uniform processes governing border checks and access to the system, only a regulation could be chosen as a legal instrument without the possibility of adaptation to national legislation.
Secure Internet access to a web service hosted by EU -LISA will allow Third Country Nationals to check their remaining authorised length of stay at any time.
Carriers such as airlines can also use this function to check whether their passengers are authorised to enter the EU.
Facial biometrics: key weapon of the EES system
The EES results in radical changes to the Schengen Borders Code as it will be used to register the biometric data of all Third Country Visitors. In contrast, only those requiring a visa are recorded in the VIS today.
Ten fingerprints were planned in terms of biometric identifiers under the old system.
The new one combines four fingerprints and a portrait for facial recognition on entry , although neither is acceptable for an exit.
The face is now the key to opening border crossings. The technology has progressed significantly over the last few years and supports traditional fingerprinting methods.
Although the European Commission no longer uses the RTP principle, it is present in all but name.
But we're jumping ahead. Here's the process.
- Four fingerprints will still be taken at the first check to verify that the traveller is not already listed in the EES or VIS.
- Without a signal, the border authority will create a file, ensuring that the Machine Readable Travel Document photograph corresponds to the new visitor's live facial image.
- When they next cross a border, their face will determine whether or not they are let in.
Biometrics is the big winner.
Smile, you're in Europe!
Passports' time-consuming (and falsifiable) stamps will be replaced by access to the EES.
Biometrics is, therefore, the big winner of the EES initiative. And no longer just in airports, as is currently the case.
Bustling sea terminals and land border posts will become the first clients of the famous automated passport control eGates currently reserved only for air travellers.
As the agency helping EU and Schengen-associated countries manage their external borders, Frontex helps harmonise border controls across the EU.
The mission of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency is to facilitate and render more effective the application of existing and future European Union measures relating to the management of external borders.
The agency provides technical support and expertise to facilitate cooperation between border authorities in each EU country.
They have already published "Guidelines for Processing of Third‑Country Nationals through Automated Border Control."
They will play a key role in analysing and defining the capability needs in border control and supporting the Member States in developing these capabilities.
EES and the fight against identity fraud
The EES mechanism is complex and ambitious as it will make border crossing faster and checks and controls more robust.
Procedures for welcoming Third Country Nationals to Europe will be much improved thanks to eGates and self-service kiosks.
Regarding migration policies and prevention of malevolent acts, it will now be possible to immediately identify people who fail to comply with entry conditions and access their travel history.
It should also be remembered that the EES will be a powerful tool in the fight against identity fraud , particularly within the Schengen area, as each visitor will have been recorded on their arrival at an external border.
Thales and identity: more than 20 years of experience
Where do we fit in?
With its recent acquisition of Gemalto, Thales is particularly interested in the EES initiative, which is hugely dependent on biometrics and checking travel documents.
Identification and authentication of people are two areas in which Gemalto has excelled for more than 20 years. The company contributes to over 200 government programs in 80 countries on these issues.
It has the expertise to meet the objectives of the EES initiative, in particular through:
- Exploiting the latest technologies to authenticate travel documents, identify travellers through biometric recording operations and checks, and assess risk with access to watch lists at all border checkpoints.
- We are reducing costs through process automation and optimisation while deploying new technologies to reinforce security and offer passengers greater convenience.
- Optimising border guards' tasks will supervise these devices, allowing them to focus on suspicious cases.
- We are reducing waiting times after registration in the EES database. This factor is not insignificant for people who live near borders and regular visitors who will devote more time to productive activities!
Self-service registration terminals and automatic or semi-automatic borders could be deployed in the next few years to speed up border checks and make access to the Schengen area more welcoming.
These automatic and biometric terminals are already deployed in the Paris airports of Orly and Charles de Gaulle ( New PARAFE smart gates ).
Facial recognition was implemented in 2018.
New PARAFE biometric smart gates at Roissy – September 2017
Thales has recognised expertise in integrated border management and contributes to two major migration management systems.
- Thales biometric identification systems are central to the American data management system IDENT (formally US-VISIT). This biographic and biometric database contains information on more than 200 million people who have entered, attempted to enter, or exited the United States of America. The US biometric entry-exit tracking system has many similarities with the European EES.
- Since its inception, Thales has been a supplier of the biometric Eurodac (European Dactyloscopy) system. It's the most extensive multi-jurisdictional Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) globally, with 32 affiliated countries. The Eurodac system is a database containing the fingerprints of asylum seekers for each Member State and those apprehended when attempting to cross borders illegally.
- To thwart attempted document fraud, Thales has developed sophisticated equipment to check the authenticity of documents by comparing the models in circulation ( Identity Verification ). Their validity is also checked by connecting to the Interpol database of Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) or national watch lists.
- For border control, in addition to its biometric smart gates, Thales offers its document reader portfolio coupled with document authentication software, fingerprint scanners , biometric authentication equipment, and software such as advanced face identification , thanks to its Gemalto Cogent portfolio, one of the pioneers in biometric technology .
Highest matching speed thanks to FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array)
Thales's biometrics technology and matching engine have led the industry in matching speed and accuracy for more than 20 years.
Our FGPA-based matching engine limits the environmental impacts of a data centre while offering unique advantages:
- Fast matching speed: FPGA provides low latency, massively parallel data processing with hardware acceleration
- System cost reduction: Off-loading the heavy CPUs calculations to FPGA acceleration cards lowers CPU requirements.
- Higher power efficiency: FPGA data processing consumes much less power than CPUs to achieve the same matching throughput
- Scalability: Horizontal scaling advantage by duplicating the server entities; vertical scalability advantage by increasing the number of acceleration cards in the system
- Flexibility: Reconfigurable circuits algorithms on FPGA can be improved by reprogramming without needing to buy new hardware
- Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS): No vendor lock-in, FPGA cards can be purchased from multiple vendo.rs
To find out more, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Next Generation Biometrics Matching Engine using FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array)
Thales Gemalto Border Kiosk
Providing a smart, swift and secure border crossing experience at external Schengen borders
Border and Visa Management Border Management System Visa Management System ID Verification Airport self-service solutions Biometrics and passenger experience New eGates
Automated Border Control Electronic Travel Authorization Entry/Exit System eVisa portal Future of travel Passenger Name Records Gemalto EES Border Management System Gemalto Border Kiosk fully EES compliant
Case studies Get Inspired Documents on Document readers Digital Identity & Security articles
Get in touch with us
For more information regarding our services and solutions contact one of our sales representatives. We have agents worldwide that are available to help with your digital security needs. Fill out our contact form and one of our representatives will be in touch to discuss how we can assist you.
Please note we do not sell any products nor offer support directly to end users. If you have questions regarding one of our products provided by e.g. your bank or government, then please contact them for advice first.