6.5 We are pleased that this document was not, in the event, on the agenda of last week's Justice and Home Affairs Council, since we have not had enough information to assess it properly. It is surprising to learn that it is a "revised version of a proposal", both because it is the first version we have seen and because it does not appear to be very well thought through.
6.6 To scrutinise it fully, we need to know more about the context. We ask whether the proposed form is a refinement of an existing procedure for exchanging information, or whether the exchange of information itself is new and the form simply a means of facilitating it. We also ask for information about the remit and membership of the "BDL Network".
6.7 We share the concern of the Netherlands delegation about the vagueness of the definitions. We ask what is to prevent the form being used for "persons who exercise their own constitutional rights set out in Article 6 TEU"and whether the statement that the information will be "confidential" provides sufficient data protection.
6.8 We will keep the document under scrutiny until we have further information about it.