The Dutch government is urging the European Union to build a safeguard into future police data-sharing agreements with non-EU partners, allowing the bloc to pull the plug if a trusted country undergoes a radical political transformation. The proposal comes as Brussels debates extending the Prüm framework—which automates the exchange of DNA profiles, fingerprints, and vehicle registration data—to a select group of external states.
In a position paper obtained by Euronews, The Hague argues that any agreement with a “trusted” third country must include explicit grounds for termination. “It is important that future agreements specify the grounds on which such an agreement could be terminated, for example in the event that a trusted third-country undergoes a radical change of regime,” the Dutch comments read.
The European Commission has proposed a list of trusted partners, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Schengen associates like Norway and Iceland, and EU candidate countries from the Western Balkans, plus Ukraine and Moldova. The Netherlands supports the idea but insists that the criteria for earning “trusted” status must be thoroughly debated, especially with enlargement in mind.
“It is important to hold thorough discussions on the criteria that any prospective ‘trusted’ third country would be expected to meet. In addition, with a view to EU enlargement, it may be worthwhile to also consider EU candidate countries when identifying ‘trusted’ third countries, where adequate safeguards are in place,” the Dutch commentary states.
The push from The Hague is part of a broader effort to strengthen democratic resilience within the EU, particularly after the experience with Hungary under Viktor Orbán. The Netherlands has been a leading voice in demanding that new members face enforceable rules on fundamental values, and the Commission recently floated the idea of suspending voting rights for up to 15 years after accession in cases of serious breaches.
For the Dutch, any data-sharing arrangement must not exceed the level of cooperation that exists among member states themselves. “In addition, it is important that member states are able to continue to carefully assess whether, and under what conditions, data originating from member states in EU information systems are shared with third countries,” the comments continue.
The debate is not just about technical data flows; it touches on core questions of trust and sovereignty. Automated police data exchange can be a powerful tool in cross-border crime fighting, but it also raises privacy and human rights concerns. The Netherlands wants to ensure that any such agreement upholds EU data protection standards and can be halted if a partner drifts away from democratic norms.
Other member states are also weighing in. Slovakia, in the same document, argued that priority should go to Schengen associates and EU candidates. Bratislava stressed that “trusted third countries should be limited to those that actively cooperate on returns and readmissions, provide reliable and verifiable information, and have a long-standing cooperation with member states and EU agencies.”
The Commission’s proposal is part of a wider effort to enhance security cooperation with key partners, but it has sparked a careful balancing act between operational benefits and fundamental rights. The Dutch insistence on a kill switch reflects a growing wariness in some capitals about entangling the EU in data-sharing arrangements that could later prove difficult to unwind.
As the debate moves forward, the question of how to define “trusted” will be central. The Netherlands wants clear, objective criteria, and a mechanism that allows member states to retain control over their own data. The outcome will shape not only police cooperation but also the EU’s relationship with its neighbours and candidates.
