This Decision establishes the European Databank on Medical Devices (Eudamed) as databank for the purposes of Article 10b(3) of Directive 90/385/EEC, Article 14a(3) of Directive 93/42/EEC and Article 12(3) of Directive 98/79/EC.

Such a databank has been developed by the European Commission in cooperation with the Member States under the name ‘European Databank for Medical Devices (Eudamed)’ and is being used by numerous Member States on a voluntary basis.

The following are the main improvements made by Bill C-13 that still have not come into force: allowing courts to make DNA data bank orders against a person who has committed a designated offence but who was found " not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder" ; adding Internet luring of a child, uttering threats, criminal harassment, and " criminal organization" offences to the list of designated offences; moving " robbery" and " break and enter into a dwelling house" and child pornography related offences from the list of secondary offences to the list of primary designated offences in order to increase the probability ...[+++] that a court will make a DNA data bank order; creating a new category of 16 extremely serious offences for which the courts will have no discretion whatsoever and must make the order; broadening the definition of secondary designated offences for the purposes of DNA data bank orders to cover all offences under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that are punishable on indictment by five years or more; including now-repealed sexual offences — among others, indecent assault male, indecent assault female and gross indecency — in the list of sexual offences designated by the retroactive provisions; simplifying the effective taking of bodily substances of offenders on release who are subject to a DNA data bank order, by creating a procedural mechanism compelling the offender to appear at a certain time and place to provide a DNA sample; and finally, Bill C-13 proposed, although this is still not in force, ensuring that an offender's DNA profile remains in the data bank until the order against him has been rescinded.

These changes are as follows: One, the inclusion of the historical offences of indecent assault female, indecent assault male, and gross indecency in the list of designated offences; two, the inclusion of those individuals found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder within the DNA data bank scheme; three, clarification of the method of compelling the offender's attendance in court at a hearing to determine whether a DNA data bank order should be made; four, the creation of a process that would permit a judge to make a second DNA data bank order where the National DNA Data Bank has declined to process the first one be ...[+++]cause of police error in completing the forms that must accompany the bodily substance submitted for analysis; five, a creation of mechanisms to require the offender to appear for the purpose of providing a DNA sample; six, the inclusion of persons declared dangerous offenders otherwise than under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code and those offenders convicted of break and enter and commit a sexual offence; and finally, the inclusion of the historical offences of indecent assault female, indecent assault male, and gross indecency in the definition of sexual offence in section 487.055(3) for the purposes of the retroactive scheme.

In order to address these concerns and thus allow passage of Bill C-3 in order to authorize the immediate establishment of the DNA data bank, the Solicitor General of Canada, Lawrence MacAulay, undertook, during his appearance before the committee on December 7, 1998, to introduce, during the anticipated 18-month interval between Royal Assent and the coming into force of Bill C-3, a new bill that would make it possible to extend the jurisdiction of the DNA data bank to offenders found guilty under the military justice system; to require the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to report on the operation of the DNA data bank ...[+++] in his annual report to the minister before it was tabled in Parliament; to include in the new bill a requirement for a parliamentary review every five years in order to reassure committee members with respect to the very sensitive nature of the information that will be in the DNA data bank and the rapid evolution of technology in this field; and to give Senate and House of Commons committees the same right of review every five years as is contained in the new bill.

By way of derogation, Germany will not forward individual data but tabular results corresponding to the BDT table programme mentioned under paragraph 2.