EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2981 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying the  
 
Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
concerning the establishment of  'Eurodac' for the comparis on of fingerprints for the 
effective application of Regu lation (EC) No […/…] [establishing the criteria and 
mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application 
for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country 
national or a stateless person] 
 
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 825 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2982}  
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 4 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................... 5 2.1. The context............................................................................................................... .... 5 
2.2. What are the problems to be addressed?...................................................................... 6 2.2.1. Continuing late transmission of fingerprints................................................................ 6 2.2.2. Impossibility of filtering asylum claims  by persons already enjoying international 
protection in a Member State ....................................................................................... 7 
2.2.3. Inefficient management of deletions of data................................................................ 8 2.2.4. Unclear specification of national au thorities having access to EURODAC which 
hinders the monitoring role of the Commission and the EDPS ................................... 8 
2.3. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal?............................................. 9 
2.4. Does the EU have the right to act?............................................................................... 9 2.4.1. Treaty basis ............................................................................................................ ...... 9 
2.4.2. Subsidiarity ............................................................................................................ ...... 9 
2.4.2.1. Transnational nature of th e problem (‘necessity test’)................................................. 9 
2.4.2.2. Value added test ...................................................................................................... ... 10 
2.4.3. Proportionality ......................................................................................................... .. 10 
3. POLICY OBJECTIVES............................................................................................. 11 3.1. General objectives...................................................................................................... 11  
3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 11  
3.3. Operational objectives................................................................................................ 11 3.4. Fundamental rights..................................................................................................... 12 4. POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 12 4.1. Status quo................................................................................................................ ... 12 
4.2. Action at EU level...................................................................................................... 12  
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS ....................................... 15 5.1. Status quo:............................................................................................................... ... 15 
5.2. Action at EU level...................................................................................................... 16  
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................. 27 6.1. Problem 1: Continuing late tr ansmission of fingerprints ........................................... 27 
6.2. Problem 2: Impossibility of filtering as ylum claims by persons already enjoying 
international protection in a MS................................................................................. 27 
6.3. Problem 3: Inefficient manage ment of deletions of data ........................................... 28 
6.4. Problem 4: Unclear specification of  national authorities having access to 
EURODAC, which hinders the monitoring ro le of the Commission and the EDPS . 28 
EN 3   EN 7. THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION ..................................................................... 29 
7.1. Assessment and considerations of pr oportionality and EU added value ................... 29 
7.1.1. Proportionality ......................................................................................................... .. 29 
7.1.2. Value added............................................................................................................. ... 30 
8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................... 30 
ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY ON ASYLUM ................................................................................. 31 ANNEX 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE EURODAC SYSTEM................................................. 33 ANNEX 3: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (incl uding one-off investment costs).................... 36 
EN 4   EN Lead DG: Justice, Freedom and Security 
AP reference number: 2008/JLS/156 
1. PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND  CONSULTATION  OF INTERESTED  PARTIES 
Since the beginning of its ope rations, four annual reports1 have evaluated the activities of the 
EURODAC Central Unit. Moreover, the Commi ssion services conducted a comprehensive 
evaluation of the Dublin system covering th e first 3 years of operation of the EURODAC 
central system (2003-2005). The outcome of this exercise, the report on the evaluation of the 
implementation of the Dublin system (herei nafter: Evaluation Repor t), was published by the 
Commission in June 2007,2 and forms an important basis for the present Impact Assessment. 
It has acknowledged the positive elements of the operation of the Dublin system, while at the same time pointing to shortcomi ngs and problems in transposition. 
Beyond the Evaluation Report, a number of othe r reports fed into this IA. A technical 
evaluation of DubliNet was car ried out in 2005. The European  Data Protection Supervisor 
(hereinafter: EDPS) has been inspecting the appl ication of the Eurodac Regulation from a data 
protection point of view and issued  an inspection report in July 2007
3 as well as an Activity 
Report covering the period 2005-2007.4 In compliance with Article 20(2) of the Regulation, 
the EDPS drew up an in-depth secu rity audit of the EURODAC system5 in November 2007.  
Additional input was received from  Member States during and as  a follow-up to the meeting 
of the EURODAC expert committee on 4-5 Oc tober 2007, where Member States discussed 
issue of delays in transmissions, endorsed the possibility of recordi ng reasons for deletions 
and the technical functionality for mutual in formation about deleti ons affecting several 
Member States, and expressed an interest in ob taining hits on data on refugees (blocked at 
present). 
During the formulation of the options, the IA  on the Policy Plan on the Common European 
Asylum System6 (prepared partly on the basis of th e consultations on the Green Paper on the 
future Common Asylum System7) was used as an essential reference. 
An Inter-Service Steering Group was conve ned on 20 June 2008, attended by DGs RELEX, 
SANCO and EAC.  
                                                 
1 First annual report to the Council and the Euro pean Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC 
Central Unit, SEC(2004) 557; Second annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the 
activities of the EURODAC Central Unit, SEC(2005) 839; Third annual report to the Council and the 
European Parliament on the activities of the EUR ODAC Central Unit, SEC(2006) 1170; Annual report 
to the Council and the European Parliament on th e activities of the EURODAC Central Unit in 2006, 
SEC (2007) 1184. 
2 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the 
Dublin system, SEC(2007) 742. 
3 Eurodac Supervision Coordination Group, Report of the first coordinated inspection, Brussels, 17 July 
2007. 
4 Coordinated Supervision of Eurodac — Activity Report 2005-2007, 21 April 2008. 
5 ‘Report on the EURODAC audit’, document classi fied as EU RESTRICTED, short summary available 
at 
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWE B/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Supervision/Eurodac/07
-11-09_Eurodac_audit_summary_EN.pdf . 
6 The objective of this policy plan is to lay down future legislative and non-legislative measures to be 
proposed by the Commission in order to complete the second phase of the Common European Asylum 
System. 
7 COM (2007)301. 
EN 5   EN The Commission’s Impact Assessm ent Board (IAB) was consulted on the draft final Impact 
Assessment report and issued its opinion on 26 September 2008. Therein, the IAB considered 
that the present IA ‘is overall of good quality and proportionate to the issues addressed in this initiative. (…) The policy objectives are concise and well articulated into general, specific and 
operational objectives. Linking them  to the problem definition by means of footnotes makes 
the relationship between these se ctions of the report visible and can be considered as good 
practice.’ The recommendations of the IAB were duly taken into account.  
2. PROBLEM
 DEFINITION 
2.1. The context 
The Convention determining the State responsi ble for examining applications for asylum 
lodged in one of the Member Stat es of the European Communities8 (hereinafter: Dublin 
Convention) was signed on 15 June 1990 in Dublin. To facilitate the id entification of third 
country nationals who fall under the scope of  the Convention, a Commu nity-wide system for 
the comparison of the fingerprints of asyl um applicants was established, and named 
EURODAC.9 
The conclusions of the Tampere European Co uncil of 1999 state that a common European 
asylum system should include, in the short term, inter alia , a clear and workable 
determination of the state responsible for ex amining an asylum application lodged in a 
Member State by a third-country national. Rules thereto were laid down  in the regulations 
which form the Dublin system: Council Regulation 343/2003/EC of 18 February 200310 
(hereinafter: Dublin Regulation), its im plementing Commission Regulation 1560/2003 of 2 
September 200311 (which together replace the Dublin Convention), the Eurodac Regulation 
and its Implementing Regulation 407/2002/EC of 28 February 200212.  
The Dublin acquis  is implemented by all Member States of the EU, as well as by Norway and 
Iceland. International agreements on the acces sion of Switzerland and Liechtenstein to the 
Dublin acquis were signed on 28 February 2008, and will enter into force as soon as they start 
applying the Schengen acquis . (In the present IA, the term ‘Member States’ is used to cover 
all states applying the Dublin acquis .) 
In accordance with the Policy Plan on Asylum — an integrated  approach to protection across 
the EU13which set out the main lines of action fo r the modification of the Regulation, the 
present Impact Assessment (IA) deals with pr oblems identified in the Evaluation Report in 
order to update the system based on the experi ences of the past 5 years of operations.  
The Commission recalls that its legislative proposal s in this field have to be compatible with 
the Charter of Fundamental Righ ts of the European Union (C FREU) and subject to an in-
depth IA on fundamental rights.14 The key rights enshrined in  the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights that are engaged here are Article 8 regarding the ri ght to the protection of personal 
data, which applies to all cases where fingerp rints are taken, and Artic le 18 guaranteeing the 
                                                 
8 OJ C 254, 19.8.1997, p.1. 
9 For a description of the EU RODAC system, cf. Annex 1. 
10 OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p.1. 
11 OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p.3. 
12 OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p.1. 
13 COM(2008) 360. 
14 COM(2005) 172, 27.4.2005. 
EN 6   EN right to asylum, which applies to those cases where a claim for asylum is made.15 Member 
States must respect fundamental rights when  implementing Community obligations, such as 
those relating to the comparison of fingerprint s of asylum applicants and others. This 
necessitates prompt and impartial investigation of any credible allegations of violations of 
fundamental rights. In addition, special attentio n should be devoted to the protection of the 
rights of the child (A rticle 24 of CFREU). 
It has to be mentioned here that the l ong-term management of the second generation 
Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Vi sa Information System (VIS), EURODAC and 
other large scale IT systems in the area of Ju stice, Freedom and Security is subject to a 
separate IA currently under finalisation. Th is would, however, not impact on the issues 
analysed in the present IA.  
2.2. What are the problems to be addressed? 
Although the assessment of the activities of th e EURODAC Central Unit (CU) as well as of 
the application of the Eurodac Regulation by the Member States has given general 
satisfaction, some provisions have been identi fied in the evaluation report of the Dublin 
system for improvement. On this basis, the following problems were identified.  
2.2.1.  Continuing late transmission of fingerprints 
The Regulation in force provi des only a very vague deadline for the transmission of 
fingerprints to the CU: Member States are requ ired to ‘promptly take the fingerprints’ and 
‘promptly transmit them’. In practice, in the absence of a strict deadline, and without any 
sanction as to non-compliance with the already vague deadline, delays in transmission of 
fingerprints were up to 30 days in some Member  States in the past, while in 2007 the longest 
delay was almost 12 days. In some Member Stat es, little progress has be en observed since the 
installation of EU RODAC, despite regular reminders by the Commission services through the 
annual activity reports and the meetings of the EURODAC expert committee.  
A delay in transmissions may lead to results c ontrary to the responsibility principles laid 
down in the Dublin Regulation. Tw o kinds of scenarios may occur:  First, the scenario of the 
so-called ‘wrong hit’ . A third-country national l odges an asylum application  in a Member 
State A (MS A), whose authorities take his/her fingerprints. While thos e fingerprints are still 
waiting to be transmitted to the Central Unit (c ategory 1 transaction, hereinafter CAT1), the 
same person could already present him/herself in another Member St ate B (MS B) and ask 
again for asylum . If this MS B sends the fingerprints first, the fingerprint s sent by the MS A 
would be registered in the Central database later than the fingerprints sent by MS B and 
would thus result in a hit from the data sent  by MS B against the data sent by the MS A. 
Therefore, MS B would be determined as be ing responsible instea d of MS A where the 
asylum application was lodged first.  
Secondly, a so-called ‘missed hit’  can occur in the following scenario. A third-country 
national is apprehended in connectio n with an irregul ar border crossing  and his/her 
fingerprints are taken by the aut horities of the MS A he/she en tered. While those fingerprints 
are still waiting to be transmitted to the Cent ral Unit (category 2 transaction, hereinafter: 
CAT2), the same person can already present him/herself in MS B and lodge an asylum 
                                                 
15 In addition, other rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights may be engaged depending on 
the circumstances. These include Article 6, the right to liberty and security; Article 7, the right to 
respect for private and family life; Article 19 prohibiting collective expulsions and upholding the 
principle of non-refoulement; Article 20, that everyone is equal before the law; Article 21 on non-
discrimination as well as Article 47 as regards the right to a fair trial. 
EN 7   EN application . At that occasion, his/her finge rprints are taken by the aut horities of MS B. If this 
MS B sends the fingerprints (CAT 1) first, the Central Unit w ould simply register a CAT1 
transaction, and hence MS B w ould handle the application (ins tead of MS A where he/she 
previously illegally entered the territory of the Member States ). Therefore, when the CAT2 
transaction of MS A arrives late r on, a hit will be missed, since CAT2 data does not instigate 
a search against CAT1 data, but is only stored and CAT1 data transmitted afterwards are compared against it.  
These scenarios are not only theoretical: in 200 7, the Central Unit detected 60 ‘missed hits’, 
of which 57 were ‘in favour’
16 of the same Member State, and 233 ‘wrong hits’, 183 of which 
were against the same Member State.  
2.2.2.  Impossibility of filtering asylum claims by persons already enjoying international 
protection in a Member State 
Under the Regulation in force, Member States ha ve to ask the Central Unit to block the data 
of persons who are recognised as refugees. If a hit occurs against da ta of a person who was 
fingerprinted as an asylum seeker but whos e data was later on bloc ked by a Member State 
because it recognised her/him as a refugee, th e Central Unit records th e hit for statistical 
purposes but sends a ‘no-hit’ reply to the Member State of origin.  
The reason behind the formulation of this provisi on is that in accordance with Article 6(1) of 
the Data Protection Directive,17 no data should be kept in a form which allows the 
identification of data subjects for longer than is necessary fo r the purposes for which data 
were collected.  
The Regulation in force stipulates , however, that five years af ter Eurodac starts operations, a 
decision would be taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaty, as to 
whether the data relating to pe rsons who have been recognised and admitted as refugees in a 
Member State should be stored and compared against CAT1 or should be erased in advance once they were recognised as refugees.  
Statistics gathered by the EURODAC CU reveal  that since the start of its activities (until 
31.12.2007), 24 464 out of 1 005 323 data sets of asylum seekers (2.4%) were blocked. 414 
out of the 24 464 blocked cases produced hits with subsequently transmitted CAT1 data. This means that 414 recognised refuge es lodged a second asylum app lication in the same Member 
State as the one which gran ted the refugee status or in another Member State.
18 This 
phenomenon goes against the underl ying principles of the Dublin  system, since without being 
able to see the hits against the presently bloc ked cases, a new asylum procedure might start in 
another (or indeed the same) Member State consuming additional resources concerning a 
person who has already received protection from  a Member State. The information that 
                                                 
16 It was the same MS which, since it did not transmit the fingerprints in time, was not determined 
responsible. 
17 Directive 95/45/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and 
on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995). 
18 From the point of view of the asylum-seeker or refugee, asylum shopping could in theory have the 
advantage of multiplying his/her chances of getting a certain level of protection. It has to be stressed 
though, that nevertheless, moving from one Member State to another entails financial costs for the asylum-seeker, as well as distress and uncertainty. The actual deterrent effect of the Dublin system from 
asylum shopping is largely dependent on the quality  and level of information asylum-seekers are 
provided with. 
EN 8   EN Member State can obtain with the unblocking of these cases can of  course be decisive in an 
asylum procedure.  
2.2.3.  Inefficient management of deletions of data  
Under the Regulation in force, deletion of data is automatic from the database after 10 
(CAT1) or 2 years (CAT2) respectively. Advance erasure  of data by the Member State of 
origin (i.e. the Member State which entered the data of an asylum seeker or of a person 
apprehended when irregularly crossing an external border in the EURODAC Central 
database) is obligatory as soon as they become aware that a data subject has acquired 
citizenship  of any Member State (both CAT1 and CAT2) and as soon as they become aware 
that the person has left the territory  of the Member States or that he/she has been issued a 
residence permit (CAT2). 
Another concern relates to the fact that Member States of origin are often not aware that 
another MS of origin  has deleted data  which corresponded to the fingerprint data it also 
entered into EURODAC at some  point, and therefore should be  subject to advance data 
erasure by all Member States of origin . Under the Regulation, it is ob ligatory to delete from 
the database all data on data su bjects once they have been issu ed with a residence permit or 
granted citizenship or upon their departure fro m the EU territory. However, at present, 
Member States have no means to inform a nd be informed about advance data erasure by 
another Member State of origin, which mean s that they cannot a pply the provisions on 
advance data erasure, and therefore some data mi ght be stored in the da tabase for a period that 
is longer than what would be justified for the purpose it was initially stored for. Compliance 
with the principle that ‘no data  should be kept in a form wh ich allows the identification of 
data subjects for longer than is necessary fo r the purposes for which data were collected’ 
cannot therefore be sufficiently monitored. Th is is a serious breach of data protection 
principles, which require data to be deleted when their stor age is no longer necessary, and 
raises doubts about the compliance of Member States with data pr otection obligations. 
2.2.4.  Unclear specification of national author ities having access to EURODAC which 
hinders the monitoring role of  the Commission and the EDPS 
The Eurodac Regulation requests that Member States communicate to the Commission the list 
of authorities having access to da ta recorded in the Eurodac cen tral database, for the purposes 
laid down in the Eurodac Regulation. From a da ta protection point of view, the relevant 
provisions in force can be considered too va gue, since Member States may communicate an 
indefinite list of ‘authorities’ wi thout any detail on the exact na ture of the authority’s national 
competences and on the relevant departments.  The Commission can only take note of the 
notifications and administer the list of authorities but cannot properly exer cise its monitoring 
role.  
The report of the first coor dinated inspection of the  EURODAC Supervision Coordination 
Group of 17 July 2007 identified as a problem th e fact that the Regulation in force does not 
impose a particular structure or nature of th e authority in charge of the management of 
EURODAC data. It furthermore recommended th at national EURODAC authorities identify 
clearly the responsibilit ies of the different services using EURODAC in their respective 
Member States and that the number of author ities having access to the results of EURODAC 
searches must be limited.  
Consequently, the EDPS and national data protect ion authorities (DPAs) rightly fear they 
cannot correctly assess whether al l data protection rules are correc tly applied in the context of 
the Eurodac Regulation, as they do not know w ho exactly is accessing da ta in each Member 
EN 9   EN State. This raises concerns regarding Memb er States’ compliance with data protection 
principles. 
2.3. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 
The existing EU measures cannot satisfactorily address the problems desc ribed above. Due to 
the complexity of the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations, there are still many possibilities 
for improvement and alignment of Member Stat es’ practices in implementation, on the basis 
of the mutual trust and cooperation underlying the Dublin system. The last few years of 
implementation have shown that  there are limits to the us e of practical cooperation among 
Member States striving to align their interpretation and practical understanding of the provisions of the Regulation (at the time a dopted unanimously by the Council and therefore 
containing important compromise s) and those limits have been  reached. The fact that the 
Eurodac Regulation, as part of the first phase of the CEAS, was adopted by unanimous vote in 
the Council meant that on some points the final text is not sufficiently practice-oriented. This 
explains why, at present, alignment can prove to be difficult on ce rtain issues (vague 
deadlines, lack of effective monitori ng capacity for the Commission, etc.).  
If no action at EU level is taken to address the difficulties described above, the problems 
identified will persist, since the present word ing of the Regulation will not be sufficient to 
ensure a high standard of efficiency in suppor ting the application of  the Dublin Regulation. 
Member States could decide to follow certain  interpretations of their own which might 
interfere with the correct and uniform applica tion of the Eurodac Regulation, thus resulting in 
serious divergences creating legal uncertainty. 
2.4. Does the EU have the right to act?  
2.4.1.  Treaty basis  
Title IV of the EC Treaty (‘TEC’) on visas, as ylum, immigration and other policies related to 
free movement of persons confers certain powers in these matters on the European 
Community. These powers must be exercised in acco rdance with Article 5 TE C, i.e. if and in 
so far as the objectives of the proposed acti on cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member 
States and can, therefore, by reas on of the scale or effects of  the proposed action, be better 
achieved by the Community. 
More specifically, the current legal basis for Community action regarding criteria and 
mechanisms for determining which Member St ate is responsible for considering an 
application for asylum submitted by a national of a third country in one of the Member States ; 
is established in Article 63 (1) (a) TEC . 
 
The reasons for a common intervention at EU le vel are clearly expressed in the paragraphs 
below, where the necessity test, based on the tr ansnational nature of the problem, is provided. 
2.4.2.  Subsidiarity 
2.4.2.1.  Transnational nature of the problem (‘necessity test’) 
The demand expressed by Member States and ot her relevant stakeholders during the wide 
consultation on the Green Paper on the CEAS and at various expert meetings shows the clear 
need for joint EU action to introduce a more ef ficient and consistent system for EURODAC.  
The problems relating to asylum and refugee prot ection are transnational, so the EU is well 
placed to propose action in the framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 
to solve the problems described above re garding the Eurodac Regulation. Although a 
significant level of harmonisation was reached in  the Regulation adopted in 2000, there is still 
EN 10   EN room for improvement in the support that Eurodac provides for im plementing the Dublin 
Regulation. The need for EU act ion regarding the management of  an EU database created to 
support the implementation of a Regulation on tr ansnational movements of asylum seekers 
seems clear. 
For the above-mentioned reasons, a coherent legal framework can only be established at 
Community level. 
2.4.2.2.  Value added test 
Action at EU level will ensure that the problems identified are tackled with appropriate 
attention to the transnationa l nature of the problem.  
Without appropriate measures at EU leve l, consistency with the evolved asylum acquis  would 
not be ensured and important updates regarding some provisions on developments that have 
taken place since the adoption of the Regulation would not be possible.  
Furthermore, better ensuring the respect of personal data would be more difficult.  
2.4.3.  Proportionality 
The present IA aims at ensuring a more effici ent and consistent system for EURODAC in the 
framework of the second phase of the Comm on European Asylum System (CEAS). Each 
suboption is assessed below so as to arrive at  an ideal balance betw een practical value and 
efforts needed. Therefore, opting for EU ac tion on the problems outlined above does not go 
beyond what is necessary to achieve th e objective of solvi ng those problems. 
EN 11   EN 3. POLICY  OBJECTIVES 
3.1. General objectives 
3.1.1.  To enable more efficient dete rmination of the Member Stat e responsible for assessing 
asylum applications19 
3.1.2.  To better address data protection concerns  
3.2. Specific objectives 
3.2.1.  To ensure truly prompt transmission of fingerprints20 
3.2.2.  To prevent asylum shopping by avoiding processing asylum claims from refugees21 
3.2.3.  To improve compulsory deletion of data22 
3.2.4.  To enable the Commission, the EDPS and nat ional data protection authorities to 
effectively monitor the management of access to data in Eurodac by national 
authorities designated for the implem entation of the Eurodac Regulation23 
3.3. Operational objectives 
3.3.1.  To avoid ‘wrong hits’ and ‘missed hits24 
3.3.2.  To ensure that asylum applicati ons of refugees are not processed25 
3.3.3.  To ensure that data are dele ted in circumstances specifi ed by the current EURODAC 
Regulation26 
3.3.4.  To enable the Commission and EDPS to know who exactly is accessing data in each 
Member State27 
                                                 
19 Linked to one of the operational objectives of the IA on the Policy Paper on the CEAS: ‘to improve the 
system of allocation of responsibility between Memb er States (Dublin system, including EURODAC)’, 
connected to specific object ives No III., IV. and VI. therein: to enhance prompt and effective support to 
national asylum administrations, by promoting practical cooperation; to foster solidarity mechanisms 
for dealing with persons in need of protection, be tween Member States and between the EU and third 
countries; to prevent asylum shopping and secondary movements. 
20 Addresses the problems identified in 2. 2.1 and the general objective 3.1.1.1. 
21 Addresses the problems identified in 2. 2.2 and the general objective 3.1.1.1. 
22 Addresses the problems identified in 2. 2.3 and the general objective 3.1.1.2. 
23 Addresses the problems identified in 2. 2.4 and the general objective 3.1.1.2. 
24 Linked to the specific objective in 3.2.1.1. 
25 Linked to the specific objective in 3.2.1.2. 
26 Linked to the specific objective in 3.2.1.3. 
27 Linked to the specific objective in 3.2.1.4. 
EN 12   EN 3.4. Fundamental rights 
Positive and negative impacts on relevant fundame ntal rights have also been considered. 
As the Eurodac Regulation is a technical instru ment to aid effective implementation of some 
criteria of the Dublin Regulation, the impact s on fundamental rights have been assessed as 
regards the right to asylum28 and the protection of personal data29.  
4. POLICY  OPTIONS 
As will be clear from the problems listed abov e, the present IA considers a number of 
technical problems that are not n ecessarily closely interlinked.  
Therefore, policy suboptions for each sepa rate problem were drawn up and assessed. 
Consequently, the final preferred policy optio n is a combination of the preferred policy 
options for the individual suboptions. Given the different technical natu re of the individual 
problems, there will be few if any synerg ies between the preferred policy suboptions.  
In the framework of the IA on CEAS the policy option ‘ Further harmonisation of EU 
legislation associated with cooperati on and harmonisation of best practices’  was chosen as 
the preferred option. The following policy opti ons are designed in th e framework of this 
general preferred policy option. 
4.1. Status quo 
If no EU action is taken, the im perfect application of  some vague provisions of the Regulation 
will continue to undermine the effective support to  the application of th e Dublin Regulation to 
allocate responsibility for the assessment of asylum claims by Member States.  
On the basis of experience in the past five years of operation of EU RODAC, no Member State 
is expected to be motivated to apply Eurodac ru les strictly if it knows th at others do not and 
that the Commission does not have sufficient m eans of monitoring to enable it to take 
appropriate action. The Eurodac system is base d on solidarity, which in  practice often means 
Member States are only willing to make ch anges simultaneously with each other.  
4.2. Action at EU level 
4.2.1.  Problem 1: Continuing late tr ansmission of fingerprints  
Option A) Facilitating the co rrect application of the Regulati on by services provided by 
the CU 
If a Member State’s delay in sending fingerp rints exceeds a certain  period of time (the 
recommended length of which could be based on a recommendation from the EURODAC expert committee), a warning message could be sent to the administrative mailbox of the 
                                                
 
28 Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that ‘The right to 
asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and 
the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees  and in accordance with the Treaty on 
European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of  the European Union (herei nafter referred to as 
‘the Treaties’).’. 
29 Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Right s of the European Union stipulates that:  
‘1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.  
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid  down by law. Everyone has the right of access to 
data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.  
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.’ 
EN 13   EN Member State of origin reminding them of th e recommended time-limit. This solution relies 
on the deterrent effect of regular reminders.  
Option B) Using DubliNet  
Under this policy option Member States will be able to use DubliNet to notify problems with 
the transmission of fingerprints. In principle, bilateral cooperation among Member States can 
solve many issues of practical implementation. On some occasions, the delays in the sending 
of fingerprints can occur because of problems with the transmission facilities or because 
asylum seekers damage their fingertips in or der to prevent their fingerprinting. Notifying 
through the secured bilateral communication tool, DubliNet30, if there are (these or other) 
problems with the transmission of fingerprints can in genera l provide solutions to solve 
complex cases where Member States dispute the outcome of the responsibility determination 
procedure due to late transmission of fingerprints.  
Option C) Legislation — specifying a clearer deadline in the Regulation  
Drawing upon the consultation of  Member States in the fram ework of the EURODAC expert 
committee on 4-5 October 2007, a possible solution could be to keep the time-limit somewhat 
flexible but at the same time to set an e nd date. Proposing a wording referring to the 
obligation to send data as soon as  possible, but not later than a certain number of hours/days 
(the exact number of which is to be determined) could accommodate the need to set a final deadline but at the same time ensure that Me mber States which currently send data in a 
shorter period than the number of hours/days to  be agreed upon as a de adline would still keep 
up their good performance.  
4.2.2.  Problem 2: Impossibility of filtering asylum claims by  persons already enjoying 
international protection in a Member State  
Option A) Legislation — erase in advance  
Under this option, data on persons already grante d a status would be erased in advance from 
the EURODAC database and therefore no hit w ould be possible to transmit should the same 
person apply for asylum again in a Member State.  
Option B) Legislation – store and compare with CAT1  
Option Ba) Store as CAT4 
Under this option, data on refugees would be retransmitted as a new category, i.e. CAT4, and 
stored separately from data on asylum seeker s (CAT1). Member States would be obliged to 
erase in advance the initial CAT1  data as soon as they grant international protection to a 
previous asylum seeker. They would also be  required to introduce a CAT4 transaction 
indicating ‘person received international protection’ for all persons they grant asylum to. This in practice would also include data on persons granted internat ional protection who have not 
undergone a Dublin procedure, e.g. those who are granted asylum as a result of resettlement.  
Option Bb) Store and attribute a mark to data previously submitted as CAT1 
Upon indication by the Member State which has granted international protection to a third-
country national whose data have been stor ed in EURODAC as a CAT1, the CU could 
attribute a mark meaning that the person has been recognised as eligible for international 
protection. This mark could be removed later if the person in question is no longer eligible for 
international protection.  
                                                
 
30 See Annex 1. The use of DubliNet is always compul sory except for the cases defined in Article 15(1) 
second subparagraph of Regulation 1560/2003/EC (Dublin Implementing Regulation). 
EN 14   EN 4.2.3.  Problem 3: Inefficient manage ment of deletions of data 
Option A) Using DubliNet  bilateral cooperation 
Member States could exchange data on deleti ons and reasons for them via DubliNet, the 
bilateral exchange tool connecting technical na tional access points (NAPs) . Since it is run on 
an encrypted private network for public administrations, it satisfies confidentiality requirements. Use of this communication tool  by Member States might enhance practical 
cooperation among Member States and ensure that they inform each other about the data that 
has to be deleted.  
Option B) Establishment of a centr alised system based on DubliNet 
A technical evaluation of DubliNet carried out in 2005 outlined th e possibility of a 
reconfiguration of the present DubliNet architecture (currently  an exchange tool) into a 
centralised system, which would need to be established.  
Such an upgrade was deemed useful for e fficient handling of the growing number of 
transactions passing thro ugh DubliNet. It would also allow the creation of reliable automated 
statistics. The automatic collection of statisti cs based on the transactions between the NAPs 
(National Access Point servers), could help to solve difficulties in gathering reliable and complete statistics on the applic ation of the Dublin Regulation.  
Option C) Automated information provided by the CU 
Data have to be deleted in advance from EURO DAC if the change of the status of the data 
subject so requires (i.e. if he/she has obtaine d citizenship of a Member State, receives a 
residence permit, has left the territory of the Member States). In order to observe the principle of necessity and proportionality, all data on th at person should be deleted from EURODAC. 
As explained in the problem definition, Member States are currently un aware of each others’ 
deletions, which might mean that they ought to delete data they entered on the same person. 
Under this option however, when a Member Stat e deletes fingerprints (along with the other 
associated data) which produce hits with the fingerprints that were entered in EURODAC by 
the other Member States of origin, an auto mated message could be sent to these latter 
Member States. This would allow them to dele te data whose retention in EURODAC is no 
longer justified.  
4.2.4.  Problem 4: Unclear specification of national authorities having access to 
EURODAC, which hinders the monitoring role of the Commission and the EDPS 
Option A) Legislation on obli gation to notify relevant details of the designated authority 
to the Commission 
Legislation giving the Commissi on the chance to monitor the de signation of authorities, by 
requiring Member States’ official notifications to  include details of the exact nature of the 
authority’s national competences, and of the relevant departments within the authority that 
deal with the a pplication of the Eurodac Regulation. 
Option B) Exchange of information on relevan t details of the designated authority in the 
framework of the E URODAC expert committee 
Following the general notification according to the Regulation in force, Member States can 
regularly exchange information including details  of their designated authorities in the 
framework of the EURODAC expert committee.  
EN 15   EN 5. ANALYSIS  OF IMPACTS  OF THE  POLICY  OPTIONS 
As will be clear from the problems listed abov e, the present IA considers a number of 
technical problems that are not n ecessarily closely interlinked.  
Therefore, policy suboptions for each sepa rate problem were drawn up and assessed. 
Consequently, the final preferred policy optio n is a combination of the preferred policy 
options for the individual suboptions. Given the different technical natu re of the individual 
problems, there will be few if any synerg ies between the preferred policy suboptions. 
Rating of impacts: 
Table of symbols 
small negative impact or small costs -√ 
medium negative impact/costs -√√ 
negative impact/costs -√√√ 
no impact 0 
small positive impact/minor savings √ 
medium positive impact/savings √√ 
significant impact/savings √√√ 
 
5.1. Status quo: 
Policy Option A: Status quo 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Relevance  
To ensure truly prompt transmission of 
fingerprints   0 Maintaining the status quo would prevent the better and quicker 
allocation of responsibility for the assessment of asylum claims. 
Missed and wrong hits would cont inue to occur and create false 
determination of responsibility.  
To prevent asylum shopping by avoiding processing asylum claims from refugees  0 The obligation to take the decision whether data on refugees 
should be stored and run a comparison against CAT1 or be erased in advance is stipulated by the Regulation. Therefore failing to 
make this decision (due five years after EURODAC started 
operation, i.e. on 15 January 2008 ) would be in breach of the 
Regulation. The decision is best placed in a new provision of the 
modified Regulation.  
EN 16   EN Policy Option A: Status quo 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
To improve the compulsory deletion of 
data 0 Should no changes be made to the current practices, an opportunity 
would be missed to improve th e application of the Dublin 
Regulation, since MSs would remain unaware of the need to delete 
data which have been deleted by another MS of origin. If there is 
no possibility for MSs to indicate the reasons for deletions, national data protection auth orities will still be unable to 
effectively monitor the observance of the rules on deletions. Both 
cases raise data protection concerns, since data would be kept in the database longer than is justified.  
To enable the Commission, the EDPS and national data protection authorities 
to effectively monitor the management of 
access to data in Eurodac by national authorities designated for the 
implementation of the Eurodac 
Regulation  0 Data protection concerns would continue to prevail as to the exact 
number and nature of staff ha ving access to EURODAC on behalf 
of the responsible authorities designated on the basis of the 
Regulation in force.  
Transposition feasibility  
- Under existing treaty 0 The policy option does not provide for further measures to be 
transposed and therefor e there are no difficulties or risks in this 
sense. 
- Under new treaty  0 The policy option does not provide for further measures to be 
transposed and therefor e there are no difficulties or risks in this 
sense. 
Implementation costs 0 No additional financial and admini strative costs would be incurred 
if preserving the status quo. 
 
5.2. Action at EU level 
5.2.1.  Problem 1: Continuing late tr ansmission of fingerprints 
Policy Option A: Facilitating the correct application of  the Regulation by services provided by the CU 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To ensure truly prompt transmission of 
fingerprints   √√√ This solution improves compliance with the Dublin Regulation by 
reminding MSs of the need to promptly take and send the 
fingerprints. The time after which a reminder would be sent by the 
CU would be set by the EU RODAC expert committee.  
impacts on fundamental rights √√ Right to asylum 
A successful scheme to deter MSs from late transmission would 
indirectly benefit asylum seekers,  since (with the decline in the 
numbers of wrong and missed hits) a more punctual and earlier 
determination of responsibility woul d be possible, therefore they 
would have their claim effectively assessed earlier and the notion of ‘refugees in orbit’ would be further reduced.  
Protection of personal data  
No significant impact, as the same data would be stored, but from 
a different period on. 
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 No administrative burden on the COM is expected, as this option 
entails changes in IT systems and from there on everything is automated. 
administrative costs for MS 0 No administrative burden on the COM is expected, as this option 
EN 17   EN Policy Option A: Facilitating the correct application of  the Regulation by services provided by the CU 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
entails changes in IT systems and from there on everything is 
automated. 
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√√ At the time of implementation (first year): EUR 27 000–40 000 for 
changes to the central EURODAC system (based on 20–30 days of work for contractor and 100–150 hours for COM). 
Consistency with the asylum acquis  √√√ This solution entails no change in the legal framework, but is 
consistent with the Regulation. 
 
Implementation feasibility √√√ No difference of impact between the two treaties. Since this 
solution entails technical changes in the system and no changes in 
the legal framework, no difference of  impact is expected under the 
two treaties.  
 
Policy Option B: Using DubliNet 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To ensure truly prompt transmission of 
fingerprints   √ Bilateral information exchange eff ectively enhances cooperation in 
concrete cases. However, communication of every problem of transmission (system downtime, im possibility to fingerprint the 
applicant, e.g. because his finge rs are damaged) can overburden 
the system. Therefore, the prin ciple of proportionality is not 
observed by choosing this option.  
impacts on fundamental rights √√ Right to asylum  
A successful scheme of targeted bilateral cooperation would 
indirectly benefit asylum seekers,  since (with the decrease of the 
numbers of wrong and missed hits) a more punctual and earlier 
establishment of responsibility woul d be possible, therefore they 
would have their claim effectively assessed earlier and the notion 
of ‘refugees in orbit’ would be further reduced.  
Protection of personal data  There is a risk that DubliNet may be controlled or monitored 
differently from EURODAC, with  the problems that this will 
entail for citizens’ data protection rights. 
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 No changes to the development or configuration of the system 
would be needed.  
administrative costs for MS -√ Some administrative burdens for the MSs are expected (additional 
allocation of staff), as this option entails action by the MSs. +/- EUR 145 000 (each MS would handle about 200 cases, each case 
would take about one hour of work). 
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√ EUR 5 500–7 500 for the development of new DubliNeT forms by 
a contractor and 50 hours of work for COM to distribute the forms, 
manage the contractor and test the forms. 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √√√ This solution entails no change in the legal framework, but is 
consistent with the Regulation.  
 
Implementation feasibility √√√ No difference of impact between the two treaties. Since this 
solution entails technical changes in the system and no changes in 
the legal framework, no difference of  impact is expected under the 
EN 18   EN Policy Option B: Using DubliNet 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
two treaties. 
 
Policy Option C: Legislation – specifying a clearer deadline in the Regulation 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To ensure truly prompt transmission of 
fingerprints  √√√ With a precise deadline laid dow n by the Regulation, MSs will 
comply better with their obligations to take and transmit fingerprints in time to allow determination of the MS responsible. 
Since the deadline would be clear and objective, the Commission 
would be able to chase up any mass delays by MS by launching infringement proceedings. 
impacts on fundamental rights √√√ Right to asylum  
Ensuring swifter transmissions would benefit asylum seekers, 
since (with fewer wrong and missed hits) a more punctual and 
earlier determination of responsib ility would be possible, therefore 
they would have their claim eff ectively assessed earlier and the 
notion of ‘refugees in orbit’ would be further reduced.  
Protection of personal data  
Current data protection will remain applicable. 
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 No changes to the development or configuration of the system 
would be needed.  
administrative costs for MS -√ Minor administrative burdens can be expected for those MSs that 
do not currently comply with the vague deadline definition 
(‘promptly transmit’) in the Regulati on in force. They will have to 
speed up their national practices.  
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√ Should this option be retained, minor cost increases may be 
expected for some MSs.  
consistency with the asylum acquis   √√√ This solution would specify th e deadline, to allow better 
application of the Regulation and better compliance with its original intention and spirit. Incl uding a clearer time-period for the 
data transmission deadline would make determination of 
responsibility more accurate. As explained above, excessive delays in taking and transmitting fingerp rints can have consequences 
leading to results contrary to  the objectives of the Dublin 
Regulation. By pursuing the present policy objective, wrong hits and missed hits could be reduced or eliminated. Member States 
systematically missing the deadline could face infringement 
proceedings. 
 
Implementation feasibility √√√ No difference of impact between the two treaties. Some MSs are 
expected to be somewhat reluct ant to agree on a more specific 
deadline. The European Parliament is expected to favour a more 
specific deadline. 
 
5.2.2.  Problem 2: Impossibility of filtering asylum claims by  persons already enjoying 
international protection in a Member State  
Policy Option A: Legislation – erase in advance  
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
EN 19   EN Policy Option A: Legislation – erase in advance  
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To prevent asylum shopping by 
avoiding processing asylum claims 
from refugees  0 If this option is retained, MSs would be expected to erase in 
advance the data they previously en tered in the system as soon as 
they grant international protection31 to the person in question. This 
would mean that MSs subsequently transmitting data to 
EURODAC about the same person would not receive a hit 
response and therefore would (continue to) be unaware of the fact that the person in question in f act already enjoys international 
protection in a MS.  
impacts on fundamental rights √ Right to asylum  
Since MSs would continue to be unaware  (as is the case at 
present) if a person applying to their national administrations for 
international protection has in fact already been granted it by a MS, they would have to continue  to devote resources also to 
applicants resorting to asylum shopping. Therefore those with 
genuine international protection needs might receive less support 
and attention. 
Protection of personal data 
Data on refugees are not primarily destined to be stored in 
EURODAC, whose purpose is to establish the MS responsible. 
Deleting data would therefore be  favourable for data protection 
reasons.  
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 Minor changes might have to be introduced in the configuration of 
the system.  
administrative costs for MS 0 No changes are expected in the admini strative burden on MSs; 
they would just have to erase relevant data instead of blocking them as currently required.  
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√ EUR 17 000–30 000, 10–20 days for a service supplier to change 
the EURODAC system and 100–150 hours for COM to manage contract and test. 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √√√ Since the decision to choose betw een the two options is called for 
by the Regulation itself, this option is by definition consistent with 
the asylum acquis . 
However, the Commission would be deprived of the (presently 
available) possibility to produce ‘statistics on hits against blocked 
cases’, i.e. to monitor whether the information provided by MSs to 
asylum seekers on the operation of the Dublin system has a 
deterrent effect on asylum shopping.
32 
 
Implementation feasibility - √√ No different impact is expected  under the two treaties. MSs are 
expected to be reluctant to eras e data on refugees, since in the 
framework of the EURODAC expe rt committee they expressed a 
clear interest in receiving the hits against the fingerprints they 
blocked. The opinion of the European Parliament is not yet known. 
 
Policy Option B: Legislation – store and compare with CAT1  
Option Ba) Store as CAT4 
                                                 
31 On the enlargement of the scope of the Dublin Regulation to cover also subsidiary protected persons, cf. 
the IA on the amendments to the Dublin Regulation. 
32 ‘Asylum shopping’ is a form of secondary movement , where the third-country national, despite the fact 
that they have already received in ternational protection, applies agai n for asylum in the same or in 
another Member State. 
EN 20   EN Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To prevent asylum shopping by 
avoiding processing asylum claims from refugees  √√√ Checking of whether a person has been already granted refugee 
status is not expressis verbis  one of the criteria to allocate 
responsibility under the Dublin Regulation. However, this 
Regulation is based on the principle that while only one MS is 
responsible for the assessment of the asylum claim, the same MS 
hold this responsibility even afte r the determination of his case 
(i.e. the responsible MS takes back the person whose application it 
rejected). Knowing that a person is already enjoying international 
protection in a MS is of course decisive for national asylum 
authorities. 
However, storing data on all persons granted international 
protection including those who ha ve not undergone a Dublin 
procedure (e.g. those who are granted asylum as a result of 
resettlement) would be dispropo rtionate from both a data 
protection and an effici ency point of view.  
impacts on fundamental rights √√ Right to asylum 
Since MSs would know if a person already enjoying international 
protection in a MS applies for it again, MSs would have to devote 
less resources to those who recourse to asylum shopping, therefore 
those with genuine international protection needs would have the 
chance to receive more support and attention.  
Protection of personal data 
Data on refugees are not primarily destined to be stored in 
EURODAC, whose purpose is to establish the MS responsible. Storing and searching these data might therefore raise data 
protection concerns. Storing da ta would imply a change of 
purpose, which needs to be justified as necessary and proportionate, in accordance with the law. 
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 No administrative cost for COM. 
administrative costs for MS -√√ EUR 500 000 (1 hour per case, 20 000 cases per year). 
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√√√ EUR 460 000–500 000. (80 to 120 days by contractor to modify 
EURODAC system, 300 to 450 hours for COM to manage contract and test, 10 000 per MS fo r changes to local IT systems 
and 100 hours per MS to mana ge contract and test). 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √ Since the decision to choose betw een the two options is called for 
by the Regulation itself, this option is by definition consistent with 
the asylum acquis . 
Storing data on all persons who r eceive international protection as 
CAT4 ‘person received interna tional protection’, would not 
directly serve the application of the Dublin Regulation. However, 
it would facilitate decision-making by national asylum authorities 
in conformity with th e Qualification and Procedures Directives.
33 
 
Implementation feasibility √√ No difference of impact between the two treaties. MSs (in the 
framework of the EURODAC expert  committee) expressed a clear 
interest in receiving hits against the fingerprints they blocked. The 
opinion of the European Parliament is not yet known.  
 
                                                 
33 Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status 
of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the pr otection granted, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 
December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing 
refugee status. 
EN 21   EN Policy Option B: Legislation – store and compare with CAT1  
Option Bb) Store and attribute a mark to data previously submitted as CAT1 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To prevent asylum shopping by 
avoiding processing asylum claims from refugees  √√√ Checking whether a person has alread y been granted refugee status 
is not expressis verbis  one of the criteria for allocating 
responsibility under the Dublin Regulation. However, this 
Regulation is based on the principle that while only one MS is 
responsible for the assessment of the asylum claim, the same MS 
holds this responsibility even afte r the determination of the case 
(i.e. the responsible MS takes back the person whose application it 
rejected). Knowing that a person is already enjoying international 
protection in a MS is of course decisive for national asylum authorities.It is to be noted that of  course with the extension of the 
scope of the Regulation, data on persons having received 
subsidiary protection status will al so be marked. On  the extension 
of the scope of the Dublin Regulation to cover persons enjoying 
subsidiary protection, cf. the IA on the Dublin Regulation. The 
analysis of the relevant figures indicates that the number of 24 464 blocked data of asylum applicants is far too low compared to the 
number of refugees recognised by Member States between 2003 
and 2007, i.e. approximately 100 000 persons.
34 
impacts on fundamental rights √√ Right to asylum 
Since MSs would know if a person already enjoying international 
protection in a MS applies for it again, MSs would have to devote 
fewer resources to applicants who resort to asylum shopping, 
therefore those with genuine inte rnational protection needs would 
have the chance to receive mo re support and attention.  
Protection of personal data 
Data on refugees are not primarily destined to be stored in 
EURODAC, whose purpose is to establish the MS responsible. Storing and searching these data might therefore raise data 
protection concerns.  
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 No administrative cost for COM. 
administrative costs for MS 0 No difference in  the administrative burden on MSs would occur, 
since they will have to perform the same number of operations, only of a different nature (marking instead of blocking).  
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√√ Should this option be retained, costs would be incurred for the 
Commission and MS. Commission: EUR 59 000–110 000 (45 to 
90 days for contractor to cha nge EURODAC system and 200 to 
300 hours for COM to manage  contract and test). 
MS: EUR 370 000. (EUR 10 000 per MS for contractor to change 
IT systems and 100 hours for each MS to manage contract and test). 
                                                 
34 This means that Member States have correctly applied the EURODAC Regulation (i.e. proceeded with 
blocking data on recognised refugees) only in approximately 20% of the cases. (NB: data on 
recognitions in MSs as well as in Norway and Icelan d have to be modified according to the years when 
the MSs which joined the EU in the two last waves of enlargement (10 MSs on 01.05.2004, 2 MSs on 
01.01.2007) were not yet applying the Dublin and Eurodac acquis . It also has to be noted that contrary 
to recognition figures, data on asylum seeker s are transmitted to EURODAC only concerning those 
above the age of 14.) In order to effectively assist MSs by providing representative information on 
persons already enjoying international protection, MSs would need to systematically comply with their 
obligation to administer data on persons who are recognised. 
EN 22   EN Policy Option B: Legislation – store and compare with CAT1  
Option Bb) Store and attribute a mark to data previously submitted as CAT1 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √√√ Since the decision to choose betw een the two options is called for 
by the Regulation itself, this option is by definition consistent with 
the asylum acquis . 
As soon as a MS grants international protection to a third-country 
national whose data have been stored in EURODAC as a CAT1, 
the CU would attribute a mark meaning that the person was 
recognised as eligible for intern ational protection. This solution 
conforms with the principles of  the Dublin Regulation and it 
would also facilitate decisi on-making by national asylum 
authorities in conformity with th e Qualification and Procedures 
Directives.  
 
Implementation feasibility √√√ No difference of impact is expected under the two treaties. MSs (in 
the framework of the EURODAC expert committee) expressed a 
clear interest in receiving hits  against the fingerprints they 
blocked. The opinion of the European Parliament is not yet known. 
 
5.2.3.  Problem 3: Inefficient manage ment of deletions of data 
Policy Option A: Using DubliNet bilateral cooperation 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To improve the compulsory deletion of 
data √ MSs could exchange data via DubliNet on deletions and the 
reasons for them.. This option is expected to enhance practical 
cooperation between MSs and to help  ensure that MSs inform each 
other about the data to be delete d. However, this option would not 
allow the Commission to draw up proper statistics on the 
breakdown of cases by reasons fo r deletion. It would also be 
problematic from a proportionality point of view, since it would 
run the risk of overburdening DubliNet.  
impacts on fundamental rights - √√ Right to asylum 
No impact.  Protection of personal data 
Data subjects whose data no longer need to be included in 
EURODAC (for reasons triggering advance erasure, i.e. obtaining citizenship, receiving a residence pe rmit, leaving the territory of 
the MSs) might be still kept in the system, since keeping other 
MSs informed via DubliNet itself might not in all cases involve 
actual erasure from EURODAC. This is due to the fact that even 
though in concrete cases MSs mi ght know or assume which other 
MSs had also entered data on the same subject, this knowledge/assumption can hardly be perfect. Moreover, if this 
solution were selected, the standard  of protection of personal data 
would be lower than in the present EURODAC framework.  
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 No administrative cost for COM. 
administrative costs for MS -√√√ +/- EUR 750 000 per year (6 000 deletions — 1 hour — 5 MS per 
deletion) 
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√√ EUR 5 500–7 500 (2 000–4 000 for creating forms and 50 hours 
for COM to manage contract and test). 
EN 23   EN Policy Option A: Using DubliNet bilateral cooperation 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √ As a technical solution for inform ation exchange on the technical 
level, this option is consistent  with the Eurodac Regulation and 
aims to facilitate the applicati on of the Dublin Regulation, by 
using the secured bilateral communication tool (DubliNet) 
established by the Implemen ting Regulation (1560/2003/EC)35 of 
that Regulation. As such, it is consistent with the asylum acquis . 
 
Implementation feasibility - √√ No difference of impact is expected under the two treaties. MSs 
are expected to be strongly opposed to this option, since they 
would experience a significant in crease of workload for their 
national administration. The opinion of the European Parliament is 
not yet known. 
 
Policy Option B: Establishment of a cen tralised system based on DubliNet 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To improve the compulsory deletion of 
data √√ MSs could exchange data on deletions and the reasons for them 
via a centralised system based on DubliNet, which would need to be established. This option is expected to greatly encourage 
practical cooperation among MSs and might also ensure that MSs 
inform each other about the data th at need to be deleted, and allow 
the Commission to draw up proper statistics on the breakdown of 
cases by reasons for deletion. However, serious proportionality 
concerns might arise from both data protection and cost-effectiveness points of view.  
impacts on fundamental rights -√√√ Right to asylum 
No impact.  Protection of personal data 
Since the data exchanged throug h DubliNet include extensive 
personal information, significant data protection concerns arise 
concerning its creation.  
administrative costs for the 
Commission -√√√ EUR 366 000 (3 persons for support and administration — 220 
days — 7.5 hours/day). 
administrative costs for MS -√√√ EUR 150 000 (based on 6 000 deletions and one hour for each 
case). 
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√√√ First year of operations: COM cost of EUR 500 000–900 000; MS 
cost of EUR 600 000–900 000. 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √ The automatic collection of statistics based on transactions 
between the NAPs would help to solve difficulties in gathering 
reliable and complete statistics on the application of the Dublin Regulation. However, the estab lishment of a new system would 
require a separate IA.  
 
Implementation feasibility - √√√ No difference of impact is expected under the two treaties. 
                                                 
35 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the 
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for 
determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the 
Member States by a third-country national. 
EN 24   EN Policy Option B: Establishment of a cen tralised system based on DubliNet 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
However, when reacting to the t echnical evaluation of DubliNet 
carried out in 2005 (which outlined the possibility of a reconfiguration of the DubliNet  architecture on the basis of a 
centralised system), MSs reached no consensus on whether to 
endorse this option. The opinion of the European Parliament is not yet known. 
 
Policy Option C: Automated information provided by the CU 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To improve the compulsory deletion of 
data √√√ When a MS deletes fingerprints (a long with the other associated 
data) which produce hits with the fingerprints entered in 
EURODAC by the other MSs of origin, an automated message 
could be sent to these latter MSs. This option is expected to ensure 
that the data to be deleted is effectively deleted by MSs. This 
option also requires legislation sp ecifying the relevant technical 
functionality (automated informat ion to MSs of origin) in the 
Eurodac Regulation. Choosing this option would not detract from the Commission’s ability to launch infringement proceedings, 
where appropriate.  
impacts on fundamental rights √√√ Right to asylum 
No impact.  
Protection of personal data 
Data subjects whose data no longer need to be included in 
EURODAC (for reasons triggering advance erasure, i.e. obtaining 
citizenship, receiving a residence pe rmit, leaving the territory of 
the MSs) would reasonably be expect ed to be effectively deleted.  
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 No administrative cost for COM. 
administrative costs for MS -√ EUR 45 200 per year for MS (based on 200 cases per country and 
0.3 hours per case). 
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  -√ For COM: EUR 66 000–95 000 (40–60 days for contractor to 
change the EURODAC system and 350–450 hours for COM to manage contract and test). For MS: EUR 370 000 (EUR 10 000 
EUR per MS for contractor to change IT systems and 100 hours to 
manage contracts and test). 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √√√ The application of the Dublin Regulation would be efficiently 
ensured.  
 
Implementation feasibility √√√ No difference of impact is expected under the two treaties. 
Member States are expected to be favourable to the development 
of the technical platform enablin g them to be informed about 
deletions. The opinion of the European Parliament is also expected to be favourable. 
 
EN 25   EN 5.2.4.  Problem 4: Unclear specification of national authorities having access to 
EURODAC, which hinders the monitoring role of the Commission and the EDPS 
Policy Option A: Legislation on obligation to notify relevan t details on the designated authority to the Commission 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To enable the Commission, the EDPS 
and national data protection 
authorities to effectively monitor the management of access to data in 
EURODAC by national authorities 
designated for the implementation of the EURODAC Regulation  √√√ If, in their official notification, MS  gave details of the exact nature 
of the authority’s national competences and of the relevant 
departments in the authority dea ling with the application of the 
EURODAC Regulations, it would enable proper monitoring of 
MSs’ activities concerning EURODAC.  
impacts on fundamental rights √√√ Right to asylum: 
No impact. Protection of personal data  
Better definition of responsible  authorities would ensure the 
observance of the rights of the data  subjects and facilitate effective 
supervision by national data  protection authorities.  
administrative costs for the 
Commission 0 No administrative burden and no costs would be incurred for the 
Commission. 
administrative costs for MS 0 No additional ad ministrative burden would be incurred for the 
MSs, since the details required w ould be notified in the same way 
as any notification currently provided of changes in the structure of national administrations.  
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  0 This option would involve no administrative costs for either the 
Commission or the MSs. 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √√√ A better definition of responsi ble authorities would ensure 
observance of the data protection and data security rules outlined 
in the Regulation.  
 
Implementation feasibility √√√ No difference of impact is expected under the two treaties. MSs 
are expected to endorse this optio n. The opinion of the European 
Parliament and the EDPS is al so expected to be favourable. 
 
Policy Option B: Exchange of informat ion on the relevant details on the desi gnated authority in the framework of 
the EURODAC expert committee 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Expected Impacts  
To enable the Commission, the EDPS 
and national data protection authorities to effectively monitor the 
management of access to data in 
Eurodac by national authorities designated for the implementation of 
the Eurodac Regulation  √√ Following the general notification procedures under the 
Regulation in force, MSs can regularly exchange details of their designated authorities in the fram ework of the EURODAC expert 
committee. Cooperation mechanisms could be established between 
this committee and the EURODAC EDPS-DPAs
36 Coordination 
Meetings.  
                                                 
36 National data protection authorities. 
EN 26   EN Policy Option B: Exchange of informat ion on the relevant details on the desi gnated authority in the framework of 
the EURODAC expert committee 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
impacts on fundamental rights √ Right to asylum 
No impact.  
Protection of personal data 
This option would be expected to improve the flow of information 
from the MSs to the Commission and the EDPS and vice versa  on 
the exact procedures for acce ss to EURODAC information by 
national authorities. However it w ould provide no legal certainty 
as regards respect for the rights of the data subjects and would not 
facilitate effective supervision.  
administrative costs for the 
Commission -√ EUR 55 000 (COM presence and preparation for 2 meetings and 
travel expenses for 2 expert meetings with all MS)  
administrative costs for MS 0 No cost, since pa rticipation in the meetings of the EURODAC 
expert committee is reimbursed by COM. 
costs of implementation (i.e. all costs)  0 Should this option be retained, no administrative costs would arise 
for either the Commission or the MSs. 
consistency with the asylum acquis   √ Some indication as to the organisation of the responsible 
authorities would help the Commission to monitor the practices of 
MSs in ensuring compliance with the data protection and data 
security rules outlined in the Regulation.  
 
Implementation feasibility - √√√ No difference of impact is expected under the two treaties. MSs 
might have reservations about this option. The opinion of the 
EDPS is expected to be unfavourab le, while that of the European 
Parliament is not yet known. 
 
EN 27   EN  
6. COMPARING  THE  OPTIONS 
6.1. Problem 1: Continuing late transmission of fingerprints 
 Policy Option A Policy Option B  Policy Option C 
To ensure truly prompt 
transmission of fingerprints  √√√ √ √√√ 
impacts on fundamental 
rights  √√ √√ √√√ 
administrative costs for 
the Commission  0 0 0 
administrative costs for 
MS 0 -√ - √ 
costs of implementation 
(i.e. all costs)  -√√ -√√ -√ 
consistency with the 
asylum acquis  √√√ √√√ √√√ 
implementation 
feasibility  √√√ √√√ √√√ 
Policy Option C is the preferred suboption. 
6.2. Problem 2: Impossibility of filtering asyl um claims by persons already enjoying 
international protection in a MS 
 Policy Option A Policy Option Ba  Policy Option Bb 
To prevent asylum 
shopping by avoiding processing asylum 
claims from refugees  0 √√√ √√√ 
impacts on fundamental 
rights   √√ √√ 
administrative costs for 
the Commission  0 0  0 
administrative costs for 
MS 0 -√√ 0 
costs of implementation 
(i.e. all costs)  -√ -√√√ - √√ 
consistency with the 
asylum acquis  √√√ √ √√√ 
implementation 
feasibility  -√ √√ √√√ 
Policy Option Bb is the preferred suboption.  
EN 28   EN  
6.3. Problem 3: Inefficient manage ment of deletions of data 
 Policy Option A Policy Option B  Policy Option C 
To improve the 
compulsory deletion of data √ √√ √√√ 
impacts on fundamental 
rights  - √√ - √√√ √√√ 
administrative costs for 
the Commission  0 -√√√ 0 
administrative costs for 
MS -√√√ -√√√ - √ 
costs of implementation 
(i.e. all costs)  -√ -√√√ - √ 
consistency with the 
asylum acquis  √√√ √ √√√ 
implementation 
feasibility  -√√√ -√ √√√ 
Policy Option C is the preferred suboption.  
6.4. Problem 4: Unclear specification of na tional authorities having access to 
EURODAC, which hinders the monitori ng role of the Commission and the 
EDPS 
 Policy Option A Policy Option B  
To enable the 
Commission, the EDPS and national data 
protection authorities to 
effectively monitor the management of access to 
data in Eurodac by 
national authorities designated for the 
implementation of the 
Eurodac Regulation  √√√ √√ 
impacts on fundamental 
rights  √√√ √ 
administrative costs for 
the Commission  0 -√ 
administrative costs for 
MS 0 0 
costs of implementation 
(i.e. all costs)  0 0 
consistency with the 
asylum acquis  √√√ √ 
implementation 
feasibility  √√√ -√√√ 
Policy Option A is the preferred suboption.  
EN 29   EN 7. THE  PREFERRED  POLICY  OPTION   
With a view to further harmonisation of na tional laws and cooperation between Member 
States to allow a more effectiv e and efficient implementation of  the legislation, a combination 
of policy options 1C, 2Bb, 3C, 4A and 5C has been identified as the preferred policy option 
on the basis of the comparative analysis carried out in the previous section.  
Preferred option: combination of po licy options 1C, 2Bb, 3C and 4A 
Assessment Criteria  Rating Reasons for the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 
Relevance  
To ensure truly prompt transmission of 
fingerprints   √√√ With a precise deadline laid down in the Regulation, MSs will 
better conform to their obligations to take and transmit fingerprints 
in time to allow determination of the MS responsible. Since the deadline would be clear and objective, the Commission would be 
able to chase up any mass delays by MS by launching infringement 
proceedings.  
To prevent asylum shopping by avoiding processing asylum claims from refugees  √√√ Knowing that a person is already enjoying international protection 
in a MS is decisive for national asylum authorities, enabling them 
to save the time and resources that would otherwise be used to deal 
with these claims. . 
To improve the compulsory deletion of 
data 
 √√√ When a MS deletes fingerprints (along with the other associated 
data) which produce hits with the fingerprints entered in 
EURODAC by the other MSs of origin, an automated message will be sent to these latter MSs. This should ensure that MSs do actually delete the data to be delete d, so that no data are kept in the 
database longer than justified.  
To enable the Commission, the EDPS and national data protection authorities 
to effectively monitor the management of access to data in Eurodac by national 
authorities designated for the 
implementation of the Eurodac Regulation  √√√ If, in their official notification, MS  give details of the exact nature 
of the authority’s national competences and of the relevant 
departments within the authority d ealing with the application of the 
Eurodac Regulations, it will enab le proper monitoring of MSs 
activities concerning EURODAC. 
Transposition feasibility  
- Under existing treaty √√√ No difficulties or risks are antic ipated regarding the combination 
of the preferred suboptions. 
- Under new treaty  √√√ No difficulties or risks are antic ipated regarding the combination 
of the preferred suboptions. 
Implementation costs √√√ Cf. Annex 2. 
 
7.1. Assessment and considerations of pr oportionality and EU added value 
7.1.1.  Proportionality 
Given the aim of a more efficient and consiste nt system for EURODAC, and the transnational 
nature of the problems identifie d in this IA, the combination of preferred suboptions offering 
solutions clearly justifies proportionate joint EU action in the framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Each subopti on was assessed so as to represent an ideal 
proportion between practical va lue and efforts needed.  
EN 30   EN 7.1.2.  Value added 
The preferred option ensures that the Regulation will be more consistently applied by Member 
States, while better providing for consistency with the EU acquis  on asylum, in particular the 
Dublin Regulation. 
8. MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION 
Statistics drawn up by the EU RODAC CU will be used to monitor fulfilment of the 
operational objectives as descri bed in 3.3.1. (avoiding ‘wrong h its’ and ‘missed hits’), 3.3.2. 
(ensuring that asylum applicati ons of refugees are not processed) and 3.3 .3. (ensuring deletion 
of data in circumstances foreseen by the curr ent EURODAC Regulation). Concerning the first 
two points, relevant statistic s are already produced every month, as a well-established 
practice. Concerning 3.3.3., the preferred solution consists of action by th e CU, so monitoring 
of the automated provision of inform ation will be equally unproblematic. 
The fulfilment of operational objective 3.3.4. (enabling the Commi ssion and EDPS to know 
who exactly is accessing data in each Member  State) will be regularly monitored by the 
Commission. 
Moreover, in order to monitor whether the revi sed Regulation is effectively enforced in the 
Member States, regular evaluati on within the framework of th e overall assessment of the 
Dublin system is suggested. Further regular EU RODAC expert meetings will be organised to 
enhance the effects of the comb ination of preferred suboptions. 
EN 31   EN ANNEX  1: GLOSSARY  ON  ASYLUM 
Asylum   
Asylum is a form of protection given by a State on its territory based on the principle of ‘non-
refoulement’ and internationally  or nationally recognised refug ee rights. It is granted to a 
person who is unable to seek prot ection in his/her country of c itizenship and/or residence in 
particular for fear of being persecuted for reas ons of race, religion, nationality, membership of 
a particular social group  or political opinion.  
Common European Asylum System   
Rules and principles at European Union leve l leading to a common asylum procedure and a 
uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted asylum. The major aims and 
principles were agreed to in October 1999 at the European Council in Tampere (Finland) by 
the Heads of State or Government. The second  phase in the establ ishment of the common 
European asylum system started with the a doption of The Hague programme in November 
2004.  
Non-refoulement   
The key principle of internationa l refugee law, which requires that no State shall return a 
refugee in any manner to a country where hi s/her life or freedom may be endangered. The 
principle also encompasses non-reje ction at the frontier. Its provi sion is contai ned in Article 
33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to  the Status of Refugees a nd constitutes the legal basis 
for States’ obligation to provide international protecti on to those in need of it. Article 33(1) 
reads as follows: ‘No Contract ing State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any 
manner whatsoever to the frontiers of terr itories where his life or freedom would be 
threatened on account of his race, religion, nati onality, membership of a particular social 
group or political opinion’. Article 3 of the Eu ropean Convention for th e Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in the light of the jurisprude nce of the European Court of 
Human Rights and Article 3 of  the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, 
Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishme nt, are also considered as bases for ‘non-
refoulement’ obligations. 
Refugee   
A person who fulfils the requirements of Article 1(A) of the Geneva C onvention. Article 1(A) 
defines a refugee as any person  who, owing to a well-founded f ear of being persecuted for 
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership  of a particular social group or political 
opinion, is outside the country of  his nationality and is unable  or, owing to such fear, is 
unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who not having a nationality 
and being outside the country of his former hab itual residence as a result of such events, is 
unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. 
Refugee status   
This is defined in the EU legislative instrument s as the status granted by a Member State to a 
person who is a refugee and admitted as such to th e territory of that Member State. In terms of 
the Geneva Convention, refugee status is de fined as the status possessed by a person who 
fulfils the requirements of the refugee de finition as laid down in the Convention.  
Tampere European Council   
In October 1999 the Tampere European Council adopted a comprehensive approach to put 
into practice the new political framework estab lished by the Treaty of Amsterdam in the area 
EN 32   EN of Justice and Home Affairs. The Council set am bitious objectives and deadlines for action in 
all relevant areas, including asylum and immi gration, police and justice cooperation and the 
fight against crime.  
The Hague programme 
The Tampere programme, adopted at the Tamp ere European Council in 1999, set the agenda 
for work in the area of Justice and Home  Affairs for the period 1999–2004. Likewise, the 
European Council adopted in 2004 the Ha gue programme, which covers the period 2005–
2010, and provides, among other goals, for the continuation of the efforts in establishing common European asylum a nd immigration policies. 
EN 33   EN ANNEX  2: DESCRIPTION  OF THE  EURODAC  SYSTEM 
Created in the context of the Dublin Convention, Council  Regulation 2725/2000/EC of 11 
December 2000 for the establishment of ‘EUR ODAC’ (hereinafter: EURODAC Regulation) 
came into force on 15 December 2000 and the Community-wide information technology system for the comparison of the fingerprint s of asylum seekers started operation on 15 
January 2003.
37 Member States anticipated that identif ying aliens who had already lodged an 
asylum application in another Member State would be difficult, if not impossible. When 
adopted in 2000, the Eurodac Regulation aimed at  establishing a tool  for the efficient 
application of the Dublin Conve ntion. At the time of the adop tion of the Eurodac Regulation, 
work had already started for the adoption of a Community instrument replacing the Dublin 
Convention, as the European C ouncil agreed in Tampere in 1999. 
After the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam (having altered the legal basis and 
procedure for asylum policy), the form of a Re gulation was chosen to integrate — on the basis 
of Title IV of the EC Treaty, in particular  Article 63 — the provisions of the Dublin 
Convention into Community law, in  view of the need to apply strictly defined and harmonised 
rules in all the Member States in relation to the storage, comparison and deletion of fingerprints.  
The purpose of EURODAC is to facilitate the ap plication of the Dublin Regulation, which is 
aimed at establishing a clear and workable mechanism for determining responsibility for asylum applications lodged in the EU Member States and in an area without controls at the 
internal borders. The Dublin sy stem addresses two main issues: 
• the phenomenon of asylum shopping,  by preventing abuse of asylum procedures in the 
form of multiple applications for asylum submitted simultaneously or successively by the 
same person in several Member States; 
• the need to guarantee effective access to the procedures for determining refugee status, 
ensure the rapid processing of  asylum applications and thus avoid the phenomenon of 
refugees in orbit .
38 
The Eurodac Regulation provides for the implementation of a Central Unit  (CU) managed by 
the European Commission containing an Automa ted Fingerprint Identific ation System (AFIS) 
which shall receive data and transmit ‘hit — no hit’ replies to the national Units (to the 
National Access Point [NAP] servers) in eac h Member State. The CU processes the 
fingerprints39 and other data on individuals over the age of 14 as follows: 
Category 1 (hereinafter CAT1): data of asylum applicants are sent for comparison  against 
fingerprints of other asylum a pplicants who have previously lodged their application in 
another Member State. The same data will also be compared against the ‘Category 2’ data (see below). This data will be stored
 for 10 years with the exceptio n of one specific case (an 
individual who obtains the nationa lity of one of the Member Stat es, in which case the data of 
the person concerned will be erased); 
                                                 
37 Commission communication regarding the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 
‘Eurodac’ (2003/C 5/03) OJ C 5 of 10.1.2003. The Central Unit of EURODAC began operating on 15 
January 2003 with an empty database, meaning that only asylum applications lodged after this date can 
be stored in EURODAC. 
38 A situation where all MS claim not to be responsible for examining an asylum application. 
39 For those categories which are stored, the database contains the fingerprints, Member State of origin, 
sex, reference number used in the Member State of origin, the date on which fingerprints were taken, 
and the date on which they were submitted to the Central Unit. 
EN 34   EN Category 2 (hereinafter CAT2): data of aliens appr ehended in connection with the irregular 
crossing of an external border and who were not turned back. These data will be sent for 
storage only , in order to be compared against  data of asylum applicants submitted 
subsequently to the Central Unit. This data will be kept for 2 years. However, they are deleted 
promptly when the individual rece ives a residence permit, leaves  the territory of the Member 
State or obtains the nationality of one of them; 
Category 3:  While the storage of the two above is compulsory under the Regulation, MS 
themselves can decide (i.e. transmission is optional ), whether they wish to use the facility of 
the CAT3 comparison (transmit fingerprints ta ken from aliens found illegally present in a 
Member State) to determine whether the person in  question is in fact an asylum seeker in one 
of the Member States. CAT3 data are not stored , but only are searched  against the data of 
CAT1 stored in the central database.  
Before accepting any fingerprint data from th e Member States, the Central Unit performs a 
quality check and is allowed to reject data and ask for that fingerprint data to be re-
submitted. 
Member States 
Under the Regulation, the notion ‘Member States’ means all EU Member States, but also the 
states applying the Dublin acquis , i.e. Norway and Iceland.  
Member State of origin 
According to Article 2(1) (c) the ‘Member State of origin’ is the Member State which 
transmits the fingerprints and other data to th e Central Unit and (in ca se of CAT1 and CAT3 
transactions) receives the results of the comparison. 
Hit 
According to Article 2(1) (e), a ‘hit’ is a matc h or matches between fing erprint data recorded 
in the database and those transmitted by a Me mber State. NB under Article 4(6), Member 
States must immediately check the results  of the comparison (‘human check’).  
Erasure in advance 
According to Article 7 of the Regulati on, data stored in the database as CAT1  is erased 
(‘Advance data erasure’) before the elapse of the default storage period of 10 years  if the 
person in question has acquired citizenship of a Me mber State. Similarly, according to Article 
10, CAT2  data is erased before the elapse of the applicable 2 years’ storage  period, in cases 
where the alien has been issued with a residenc e permit, has left the territory of the Member 
States or has acquired citizenship of a Member  State. (CAT3 data is not stored in the 
database.) 
DubliNet 
Article 22(2) of the Dublin Regulat ion provides for the creation of a secure electronic 
transmission channel between the responsible aut horities for transmitting the different types 
of requests  and ensuring that senders automatically  receive electronic proof of delivery. 
DubliNet was created for this purpose. 
The DubliNet system is a bilateral exchange of data between techni cal national access points 
(NAPs), sent over the s-TESTA network (Trans -European Services for Telematics between 
Administrations) which is a Generic Service of the Community IDA Programme (Interchange 
of Data between Administrations). This is  an encrypted private network for public 
administrations, providing a secure telecommuni cations infrastructure based on IP (internet 
protocol). 
EN 35   EN The use of DubliNet is always  compulsory except for the cas es defined in Article 15(1) 
second subparagraph of Regulation 1560/2003/ EC (Dublin Implementing Regulation).40 
Statistics: 
EURODAC began its operations on 15 Janua ry 2003. On 31 December 2007, its central 
database contained 1 005 323 sets of fingerprint s of asylum seekers and 80 923 data sets of 
persons apprehended in connection with an ir regular crossing of th e external border.  
The EURODAC system was designed to be ca pable of storing 800 000 full ten print images41 
and is currently capable of storing 1 600 000 ten print images. This implies that the 
EURODAC system has not yet reached th e upper limit of its storage capacity.  
The total of successful transacti ons sent to the CU in 2007 totall ed 270 611, i.e. an average of 
741 per day. The system is designed to process 3 750 transactions per day.42  
• The number of transactions of data of asylum seekers43 (CAT1, i.e. of those at least 14 
years of age) was 197 284. 38 173 transactions were sent in as CAT2 (third-country 
nationals apprehended in conn ection with the irregular cros sing of an external border). 
                                                 
40 ‘By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, correspondence between the departments 
responsible for carrying out transfers and compet ent departments in the requested Member State 
regarding the practical arrangements for transfers,  time and place of arrival, particularly where the 
asylum seeker is under escort, may be transmitted by other means.’. 
41 The Commission staff working document accomp anying the Report fro m the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the Dublin system, SEC(2007) 742 of 6 June 2007. 
42 See footnote 24. 
43 It should be noted that EURODAC data on asylum applications are not comparable with those produced 
by Eurostat, which are based on monthly statistical data returns from the Ministries of Justice and 
Interior. The main (methodological) reason for the difference is that Eurostat definitions include all asylum applicants of whatever age, with a distinction between first and repeat applications. In practice, 
Member States differ in terms of whether or not th e dependants of asylum applicants are included in 
their asylum data. EURODAC contains fingerprints of  asylum seekers from the age of 14 onwards. 
 
EN    EN ANNEX  3: ADMINISTRATIVE  COSTS  (INCLUDING ONE -OFF INVESTMENT COSTS ) 
Preferred options:  
Problem 1 — Option C 
Problem 2 — Option Bb 
Problem 3 — Option C 
Problem 4 — Option A   Type of 
obligation  Description of 
required action(s)   Target group  Tariff 
(€ per hour)
 Time  (hour)
 Price (per action or equip) Freq  
(per year) Nbr  
of  entities Total nbr
of  actions Total yearly 
recurring cost  Total one time 
cost
    
  
1 Problem 2 — 
Option Bb  Adapt IT 
system Implementing 
changes to the 
EURODAC Central 
IT System 
 European 
Commission Between EUR 59 000 and 110 000. 45 to 90 days of work for 
system supplier to implement the changes, between 200 and 
300 hours for COM for definition of needs, procurement, 
testing and follow-up. 1  84 500  
  
2 Problem 2 — 
Option Bb  Adapt IT 
system Implementing 
changes to the MS IT Systems EU27 + NO + 
IS EUR 10 000 per country for changes to the local IT system by 
system supplier and 100 hours for each country to manage contract. EUR 10 000 estimate based on 10 to 20 working 
days for system supplier for each MS, estimated at EUR 500–
1 000 per day. Contractor work includes analysis, implementation/installation and an elaborate test session with the EURODAC Central test system. 1  370 000  
 
 
3 Problem 3 — 
Option C  Sending 
delete transaction to EURODAC Consult local 
systems, delete if necessary and keep track of deletions EU27 + NO + 
IS 
26  0.30   200.00 29 29 45 240   
 
 
4 Problem 3 — 
Option C  Adapt IT 
system Implementing 
changes to the EURODAC Central IT System European 
Commission Between EUR 66 000 and 95 000. 40 to 60 days of work for 
system supplier to implement the changes, between 350 and 450 hours for COM for definition of needs, procurement, testing and follow-up. 1  80 500  
 
 
5 Problem 3 — 
Option C  Adapt IT 
system Implementing 
changes to the MS IT Systems EU27 + NO + 
IS EUR 10 000 per country for changes to the local IT system by 
system supplier and 100 hours for each country to manage contract. EUR 10 000 estimate based on 10 to 20 working days for system supplier for each MS, estimated at EUR 500–1 000 per day. Contractor work includes analysis, implementation/installation and an elaborate test session with 1  370 000  
 
 
 
EN    EN the EURODAC Central test system. 
             Total 
administrative 
costs (€) 45 240 950 240    
The likely administrative burdens are only assessed for the preferred option(s).    
The cost estimates for changes to IT systems are based on past experiences with changes to the Central EURODAC IT system.   
To assess the number of deletions necessary, the following paramet ers were taken into account: number of deletions last 12 mont hs – average number of hits – esti mated growth of the number of 
deletions. The result was divided amongst EURO DAC Members, giving a result of +/- 200 per MS. 0.3 hours is an estimate taking i nto account that these actions c an be supported by automated tools. 
The cost per hour is based on a weighted average of the cost in EU27 administrations and the cost in NO&IS and has been rounded .   
Average employment costs in the EU-27 public administration: Euro stat: Average hourly labour costs, defined as total labour cos ts divided by the corresponding number of hours worked (€20.35 in 
2005).    
The 2005 figure has been rounded upwards, based on the assumption of economic growth and trends over the preceding years, and o verheads of 10% have been added.    
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985& _dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&prod uct=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_popul
ation/C/C4/C43/dbb10000    
Average employment costs in the European Commission in 2007, DG BUDG, note 24/11/2006, Adonis No 11216        
Average employment costs in the third/associated countries’ public  administrations: Eurostat: Average hourly labour costs, defi ned as total labour costs divided by the corresponding number of hours 
worked (€32 in 2005).   
The 2005 figure has been rounded upwards, based on the assumption of economic growth and trends over the preceding years, and o verheads of 10% have been added.   
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985& _dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&prod uct=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_popul
ation/C/C4/C43/dbb10000