Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the Dublin system {SEC(2007) 742}
Date: 2007-06-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, admission of aliens, database management system, foreign national, identity document, member country, migration policy, residence permit, right of asylum

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.6.2007 
COM(2007) 299 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the evaluation of the Dublin system 

{SEC(2007) 742} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the evaluation of the Dublin system 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

The Dublin system 

The "Dublin system" aims to determine which Member State is responsible for examining an 
asylum application lodged by a third-country national on the territory of one of the Member 
States of the EU, Norway and Iceland1. 

It  comprises  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  343/2003  of  18  February  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  (the 
Dublin  Regulation)2  and  its  Implementing  Regulation3  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2725/2000  of  11  December  2000  concerning  the  establishment  of  'Eurodac'  for  the 
comparison  of  fingerprints  for  the  effective  application  of  the  Dublin  Convention  (the 
EURODAC Regulation)4 and its Implementing Regulation5. 

The  territorial  scope  of  the  Dublin  system  has  been  extended  to  Switzerland,  through  an 
international agreement, which is until now only provisionally applicable. 

1.2. 

Scope and objectives of the Report 

The  Dublin  and  EURODAC  Regulations  require  the  Commission  to  report  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  their  application  after  three  years  of  operation  and  to 
propose,  where  appropriate,  the  necessary  amendments.  Since  the  EURODAC  Regulation 
establishes  a  tool  for  the  efficient  application  of  the  Dublin  Regulation,  it  was  decided  to 
merge the two evaluations in one comprehensive report.  

This report aims to assess the application of both Regulations, from their respective entry into 
force until the end of 2005 (“the reference period”). It further seeks to measure Dublin flows 
in  comparison  to  the  overall  asylum  seekers'  population  in  the  Member  States.  It comprises 
two documents: a Report, which presents the main findings and conclusions of the analysis 
carried out by the Commission services, and a Commission staff working document6, which 
contains the details of such an analysis. 

1 

2 
3 

4 
5 

6 

Until 21 February 2006, Denmark did not take part in the Dublin Regulation. Therefore, Member States 
in this report means all Member States of the EU except Denmark, plus Norway and Iceland. 
OJ L 50, 25.2.2003. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1560/2003  of  2  September  2003  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (OJ L 222, 5.9.2003). 
OJ L 316, 15.12.2000. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  407/2002  of  28  February  2002  laying  down  certain  rules  to  implement 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 (OJ L 62 of 5.3.2002). 
SEC(2007) 742. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The results of this report will feed into the process of evaluation of EU policies on Freedom, 
Security and Justice, as detailed in the Commission Communication of 28 June 20067. 

2. 

APPLICATION OF THE DUBLIN SYSTEM 

2.1. 

Introduction 

In  accordance  with  the  Dublin  Regulation,  Member  States  have  to  assess,  on  the  basis  of 
objective  and  hierarchical  criteria,  which  Member  State  is  responsible  for  examining  an 
asylum application lodged on their territory. If the analysis of these criteria designates another 
Member  State  as  being  responsible,  they  can  decide  to  request  the  other  Member  State  to 
"take charge" of the asylum seeker and consequently to examine the application. If the other 
Member State recognises its responsibility, the first Member State has to transfer the asylum 
seeker to the other Member State. 

In  the  case  where  a  Member  State  has  already  examined  or  started  the  examination  of  an 
asylum  application,  it  can  be  requested  to  "take  back"  the  asylum  seeker  who  is  in  another 
Member  State  without  permission,  in  order  to  complete  the  examination  of  the  asylum 
application or to take appropriate measures to return the asylum seeker to his/her country of 
origin. If the aforementioned Member State recognises its responsibility, the Member State in 
which the asylum seeker resides without permission has to transfer him/her to the responsible 
Member State. 

The  EURODAC  Regulation  has  established  a  tool  for  facilitating  the  application  of  the 
Dublin  Regulation,  by  registering  and  comparing  fingerprints  of  asylum  seekers.  Member 
States have to take the fingerprints of each third-country national above 14 years of age who 
applies  for  asylum  on  their  territory  or  who  is  apprehended  when  irregularly  crossing  their 
external border. They can also take the fingerprints of aliens found illegally staying on their 
territory in order to check whether they have applied for asylum (on their territory or that of 
another  Member  State).  They  have  to  send  these  data  promptly  to  the  EURODAC  Central 
Unit,  managed  by  the  Commission,  which  will  register  them  in  the  Central  database  and 
compare them with already stored data. Such comparison can produce "hits", when the data 
introduced  match  with  already  stored  data.  Where  hits  reveal  that  an  asylum  seeker  has 
already applied for asylum or that she/he entered the territory irregularly in another Member 
State, the Member States together can act in accordance with the Dublin Regulation. 

2.2. 

Figures and overall findings 

As far as the application of the Dublin Regulation is concerned, the analysis of the statistics 
provided by the Member States proved extremely difficult. As explained more in detail in the 
working  document,  one  of  the  main  problems  is  the  significant  mismatch  between  the 
numbers of requests and decisions that each Member State reports to have received from other 
Member  States  (incoming  data)  and  numbers  of  requests  and  decisions  that  each  Member 
State reports to have sent to other Member States (outgoing data). The two sets of data should 
in principle be the same, but, due to different interpretations of the definitions for registration 
and  the  incompleteness  of  certain  data,  the  two  numbers  do  not  coincide.  In  order  to  avoid 
confusion,  the  present  Report  is  based  only  on  the  outgoing  data,  while  in  the  working 

7 

COM(2006) 332. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
document  a  distinction  between  incoming  data,  on  the  one  hand,  and  outgoing  data,  on  the 
other, has been made.  

This problem underlines the importance to have a commonly agreed statistical framework in 
the  field  of  asylum  and  immigration  which  the  Regulation  on  Community  statistics  on 
migration and international protection8 once adopted will contribute to achieve. 

Application of the Dublin Regulation
September 2003-December 2005

Requests 

EURODAC based requests 

Acceptances

Refusals 

Transfers

55.310

28.393

40.180

10.536

16.842

1

2

1

1

3

1
   For IT, UK, LU and ES data available since 01.2004 . For FR no data available.
2
   For IT, UK and ES data available since 01.2004. For FR, LU and SE: no data available.
   For IT, UK,  LU and ES data available since 01.2004. For FR, SE and BE: no data available
3

According  to  the  data  transmitted  by  the  Member  States,  more  than  55 300  requests  for 
transfer  were  sent  out  (11.5%  of  the  total  number  of  asylum  applications  –589 499-  in  all 
Member States for the same period). 

Of the requests, 72% were accepted; in other words, in 40 180 cases another Member State 
accepted to take responsibility for an asylum applicant.  

However,  only  16 842  asylum  applicants  were  actually  transferred  by  the  Member  States 
(more  details  on  this  figure  and  what  it  represents  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  number  of 
acceptances  are  given  in  the  working  docment).  The  issue  of  transfers  of  asylum  seekers 
could, therefore, be regarded as one of the main problems for the efficient application of the 
Dublin system. 

As  far  as  EURODAC  is  concerned,  the  statistics  are  much  more  reliable,  since  data  were 
provided by automatic reports from the Central Unit. The table below shows the evolution of 
the three types of transactions Member States send to the EURODAC Central Unit. 

8 

COM(2005) 375, 14.9.2005. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Application of the EURODAC Regulation
January 2003-December 2005

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

2003

2004

2005

       Category 1                 Category 2              Category 3 

In the reference period, data on 657 753 asylum applicants ("category 1 transactions") were 
successfully sent. The number of such transactions has consistently decreased (2003: 238 325; 
2004:  232 205;  2005:  187 223).  This  decrease  is  even  more  significant  when  one  considers 
that  as  of  1  May  2004,  10  new  Member  States  started  applying  the  EURODAC  Regulation 
and that these numbers do not include only "new" asylum applications (multiple applications 
are also included). This reflects the general drop of asylum applications observed in the EU 
for some years.  

In  2005,  a  comparison  of  new  asylum  applicant  data  with  stored  asylum  applicant  data, 
showed  that  16%  of  the  cases  were  "multiple  applications",  i.e.  an  asylum  applicant  had 
previously lodged an asylum application either in the same or another Member State. 

In  the  same  reference  period,  data  on  48 657  third-country  nationals  apprehended  in 
connection  with  the  irregular  crossing  of  an  external  border  ("category  2  transactions") 
were  registered  in  the  Central  database.  The  number  of  such  transactions  has  been 
considerably  increasing  each  year,  but  it  is  still  surprisingly  low  when  one  considers  the 
strong irregular migratory pressures at the external borders of the EU. 

Again for the reference period, data on 101.884 third-country nationals found illegally present 
on the territory of a Member State ("category 3 transactions") were registered. This figure 
has been increasing each year, demonstrating a growing interest from the Member States to 
make use of such a checking possibility. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
2.3. 

Practical implementation and possible improvements 

2.3.1.  Application of the Dublin Regulation 

The  evaluation  has  shown  that  the  Dublin  Regulation  is  in  general  being  applied  in  a 
satisfactory manner and that it does provide a workable system for determining responsibility 
for the examination of asylum applications. However, certain issues in its application, which 
are outlined here below and detailed further in the working document, have been identified. 

Effective access to procedures 

The Dublin Regulation places on the Member State determined as responsible an obligation to 
examine the asylum application. While most Member States correctly interpret this provision 
as  an  obligation  to  proceed  to  the  full  assessment  of  the  protection  needs  of  the  asylum 
applicant, to the knowledge of the Commission, one Member State does not carry out, under 
certain  circumstances,  such  an  assessment  when  taking  back  asylum  seekers  from  other 
Member States. 

It should be reminded that the notion of an "examination of an asylum application" as 
defined  in  the  Dublin  Regulation  should  be  interpreted,  without  any  exceptions,  as 
implying  the  assessment  whether  the  applicant  in  question  qualifies  as  a  refugee  in 
accordance with the Qualification directive9. 

Consistency with EU asylum acquis 

The  Dublin  Regulation  does  not  apply  to  applicants  for  (or  beneficiaries  of)  subsidiary 
protection. This has particularly negative consequences for those asylum seekers who cannot 
be reunited with family members granted subsidiary protection in another Member State. The 
main reason why subsidiary protection was not included in the Dublin Regulation was that at 
the time of its adoption, such a concept was not yet part of the EU asylum acquis. However 
with the adoption of the Qualification Directive such a concept has become an integral part of 
the EU legislative framework on asylum which should be reflected in all asylum instruments. 

The Commission intends to propose to extend the scope of the Dublin Regulation to include 
subsidiary protection. 

Uniform application 

A  uniform  application  of  the  rules  and  criteria  established  by  the  Dublin  Regulation  is 
essential  for  its  proper  functioning.  However,  Member  States  do  not  always  agree  on  the 
circumstances under which certain provisions should apply. 

Such  diverging  interpretations  have  in  particular  been  observed  in  the  application  of  the 
sovereignty  clause  (Article  3(2)  Dublin  Regulation),  which  allows  Member  States  to  take 
responsibility,  even  if  the  Dublin  criteria  would  designate  another  Member  State;  and  the 
humanitarian clause (Article 15 Dublin Regulation), which allows Member States to bring 
together family members, whereas the strict application of the criteria would separate them. 

9 

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 protection granted (OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States apply the sovereignty clause for different reasons, ranging from humanitarian 
to purely practical.  

The  application  of  the  sovereignty  clause  for  humanitarian  reasons  should  be 
encouraged, as this appears to correspond to the underlying objective of this provision.  

In the current text of the Dublin Regulation, the consent of the asylum seeker is not required 
for the application of the sovereignty clause. This has had, in certain circumstances, negative 
consequences,  notably  when  this  has prevented asylum seekers to rejoin family members in 
other Member States. 

As far as the humanitarian clause is concerned, the precise circumstances for its application 
are, in certain cases, not specified, in particular whether it can be applied at the request of an 
asylum  seeker  and  whether  deadlines  should  apply  to  requests  sent  by  a  Member  State  to 
another. 

The Commission will propose to better specify the circumstances and procedures for applying 
both the sovereignty and humanitarian clause, notably to set deadlines applicable to requests 
and  to  introduce  the  requirement  for  the  consent  of  the  asylum  seeker  concerned  by  the 
application of the sovereignty clause. 

Some  Member  States  have  encountered  difficulties  in  the  application  of  the  provisions  for 
ending responsibility (Articles 10(1), 16(3) and (4), 20(2) Dublin Regulation). In this respect 
a clarification of the relevant provisions might help to overcome these difficulties.  

The Commission will propose to clarify the circumstances under which the responsibility of a 
Member State ceases. 

Finally,  some  diverging  interpretations  exist  with  regard  to  requests  to  take  back  an 
unaccompanied  minor  who  has  previously  applied  for  asylum  in  another  Member  State 
(Article 6 Dublin Regulation). Some Member States refrain from requesting to take back an 
unaccompanied minor. 

While  the  application  of  take  back  requests  should  not  be  ruled  out  in  the  case  of 
unaccompanied minors, the best interest of the child should always prevail. 

The  Commission  will  further  clarify  the  applicability  of  the  Dublin  rules  to  unaccompanied 
minors. 

Evidence 

The  evidence  required  for  accepting  to  take  charge of  an  asylum  seeker  is  often  difficult  to 
provide.  This  has  had  particularly  negative  effects  on  the  application  of  the  family  unity 
criteria,  thus  undermining  the  practical  implementation  of  one  of  the  most  important 
provisions of the Dublin Regulation. 

A  similar  difficulty  has  been  observed  regarding  the  application  of  the  criterion  of  illegal 
entry to the EU territory (Article 10(1) Dublin Regulation), where only EURODAC evidence 
tends to be accepted.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Member  States  have  nevertheless  agreed  on  a  list  of  means  of  proof  and  a  list  of 
circumstantial evidence, which have been annexed to the Implementing Regulation.  

While  understanding  the  importance  of  clear  evidence  in  order  to  avoid  abuse  of  the 
system,  in  particular  in  view  of  family  reunification,  the  Commission  considers  that 
Member States should apply the Dublin Regulation and its Implementing Rules in their 
entirety, using all means of proofs foreseen, including credible and verifiable statements 
of the asylum seeker. 

Deadlines 

Several  Member  States  consider  the  absence  of  time-limits  for  requesting  to  "take  back"  an 
asylum seeker to be counterproductive for the efficiency of the system.  

In  addition,  Member  States  are  not  satisfied  with  the  six-week  deadline  for  replying  to 
requests for information, which is considered too long for such essential evidence. 

The Commission will propose time limits for "take back" requests and to shorten the deadline 
for replying to requests for information to 4 weeks. 

Transfers 

The low rate of effected transfers of asylum seekers compared to accepted ones undermines 
considerably the effectiveness of the system. Member States indicate as a reason for this the 
fact that asylum seekers often disappear upon reception of a transfer decision.  

Statistics  have  revealed  that  certain  Member  States  transfer  similar  numbers  of  asylum 
seekers  between  themselves.  The  possibility  for  Member  States  to  set  up  mechanisms  for 
limiting  the  number  of  transfers  could  reduce  the  workload  and  operating  costs  of  the 
departments  responsible  for  transfers.  It  could  also  avoid  further  secondary  movements 
following transfers. 

The  Commission  will  examine  the  possibility  to  allow  Member  States  to  conclude  bilateral 
arrangements concerning "annulment" of the exchange of equal numbers of asylum seekers in 
well-defined circumstances. 

Increase in custodial measures 

Member  States  increasingly  introduce  custodial  measures  for  persons  subject  to  a  transfer 
decision in order to prevent them from absconding before the transfer is carried out.  

The  Commission recalls  that  while  recognising the  need  to  find  ways  of  improving  the 
effectiveness of transfers, custodial measures should be only used as a last resort, when 
all  other  non-custodial  measures  are  not  expected  to  bring  satisfactory  results  and 
because  there  are  objective  reasons  to  believe  that  there  is  a  high  risk  of  the  asylum 
seeker absconding. In any event, due account should always be taken of the situation of 
families, persons with medical needs, women and unaccompanied minors. 

Incorrect application 

The incorrect application of the Regulation has been observed mainly in relation to procedural 
aspects, notably when time-limits for requesting or for reacting are not respected. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Member  States  should  strictly  respect  the  time-limits  set  in  the  Dublin  Regulation, 
bearing in mind the sanction of implicit acceptance when no answer to a request is given 
within  the  requested  time-limits,  and  the  possibility  for  asylum  applicants  to  challenge 
Member States authorities for not respecting a deadline. 

Another  issue  concerns  the  non  systematic  use  by  certain  Member  States  of  the  secured 
bilateral  communication  tool,  called  DubliNet.  Due  to  the  nature  of  the  information 
transmitted, this might raise some data protection problems.  

The  Commission  recalls  that  the  use  of  DubliNet  is  always  compulsory  safe  for  the 
exceptions defined in Article 15(1), second subparagraph. 

2.3.2.  Application of the EURODAC Regulation 

As  far  as  the  EURODAC  Regulation  is  concerned,  while  all  Member  States  apply  it  in  a 
generally  satisfactory  manner,  the  practical  application  of  some  provisions  remains 
problematic. 

Deadlines 

The  EURODAC  Regulation  requests  Member  States  to  send  their  data  promptly  to  the 
EURODAC Central Unit (Articles 4(1) and 8(1)). It appears that it takes sometimes over 30 
days to do this. As such a delay in transmission can lead to the wrong determination of the 
responsible Member State, it is extremely important that Member States reduce this delay. 

The Commission will propose a clear deadline for transmitting data to the EURODAC Central 
Unit. 

Collection of data 

As  stated  before,  the  Commission  considers  the  number  of  registered  illegal  entrants 
(48 657)  to  be  surprisingly  low.  This  raises  questions  on  the  effective  application  of  the 
obligation to fingerprint all illegal entrants at the borders of the Union. As such information is 
crucial  for  the  effective  application  of  one  of  the  Dublin  criteria,  Member  States  should 
strictly comply with this obligation. 

Systematic non compliance  with  the  obligation to fingerprint illegal  entrants could  be taken 
into  account  by  the  Commission  when  reviewing  the  implementation  of  the  Solidarity  and 
Management Migration Flows Framework Programme in 2010 and in particular the relevant 
distribution criteria applicable for the different funds. 

Quality 

Statistics  revealed  that  6%  of  data  is  rejected  because  of  its  low  quality.  The  quality  of  the 
data sent to the EURODAC Central Unit could still be improved via specific training, local 
quality checks and the use of state-of-the-art equipment, such as live scanners. Member States 
are encouraged to use available Community funding to this end. 

The Commission will organise training seminars for Member State administrations to improve 
the quality of data. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Deletion 

Respect of the obligation to delete certain data (Articles 7 and 10(2) EURODAC Regulation), 
e.g. in cases where an asylum seeker acquires citizenship, is also problematic. Unfortunately, 
such deletion is not done routinely, namely because the Member State that introduced the data 
is not aware of the change of status. 

The Commission will propose the introduction of specific codes for each type of deletion, in 
order  to  better  monitor  the  respect  of  this  obligation,  as  well  as  systematic  means  for 
exchange of information in the event of change in the status of an asylum seeker. 

Data protection 

Other concerns relate to the correct application of the rules for the respect of personal data, 
notably those allowing data subjects to request Member States to check information on their 
own  data  in  the  EURODAC  database  (using  so-called  "special  searches",  Article  18 
EURODAC  Regulation).  During  the  reference  period,  more  then  3 700  of  such  special 
searches have taken place, which is a surprisingly high number. 

The Commission recalls that such searches are strictly limited to the application of data 
protection rules. 

2.3.3.  EURODAC's support to the Dublin Regulation 

The  objective  of  the  EURODAC  Regulation  is  to  facilitate  the  application  of  the  Dublin 
Regulation. It is, therefore, interesting to examine whether EURODAC has indeed contributed 
to the achievement of the Dublin Regulation objectives. 

As noted previously, in 2005 16% of asylum applications were in fact multiple applications. 
This might indicate that the Dublin system did not have the expected deterrent effect against 
the  "asylum  shopping"  phenomenon.  Many  asylum  seekers  continue  trying  to  obtain  a 
favourable decision for their case by lodging more than one asylum application. The provision 
of correct information to asylum seekers about the consequences of subsequent applications 
could be one of the measures which could help prevent this phenomenon. 

As  far  as  evidence  of  illegal  entry  is  concerned,  it  should  be  stressed  again  that  only  if  all 
Member  States  comply  with  the  obligation  to  collect  data  of  each  alien  who  enters  the  EU 
illegally,  will  the  EURODAC  Regulation  facilitate  effectively  the  application  of  the  Dublin 
Regulation. 

Finally,  it  has  been  observed  that  Member  States  receive  quite  often  results  from  the 
EURODAC  Central  Unit  containing  multiple  hits,  meaning  that  the  asylum  seeker's  data 
have  been  registered  by  several  Member  States.  On  the  basis  of  such  information,  it  is  not 
always obvious to determine which Member State bears the responsibility for examining the 
asylum claim, notably within the imposed time-limits.  

In order to simplify the analysis of multiple hits, the Commission will propose mechanisms 
for Member States to keep each other informed of the status of EURODAC data subjects, as 
well  as  technical  amendments  to  the  transmission  mechanism  of  data  to  the  EURODAC 
Central  Unit,  notably  in  order  to  introduce  more  information  about  the  status  of  asylum 
seekers. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
2.3.4.  Possible future developments of the EURODAC Regulation 

The  main  objective  of  the  EURODAC  Regulation  is  to  provide  support  for  the  quick 
identification  of  the  Member  State  responsible  for  an  asylum  application.  However,  the 
information  contained  in  the  EURODAC database could also have other  useful applications 
such as contributing to the prevention of the abuse of the asylum system.  

Whilst Member States are obliged to store the fingerprints of aliens found illegally crossing 
their  external  border  they  are  not  required  to  store  the  same  data  for  those  found  illegally 
staying on their territory.  

However, Member States are already demonstrating a growing interest in using the details of 
third-country  nationals  found  illegally  on  their  territory  as  the  figures  for  the  period  2003-
2005 evidence. Furthermore, there is a significant discrepancy between those found illegally 
present  on  a  State's  territory  (101 884)  and  those  apprehended  in  connection  with  irregular 
crossing  of  an  external  border  (48 657).  It  is  therefore  proposed  to  store  data  relating  to 
persons apprehended when illegally staying on a Member State's territory. This data will be 
useful when examining asylum applications, for example to assist in the prevention of abuse 
by  verifying  statements  made  by  asylum  applicants.  Such  data  could  be  stored,  in  line  with 
what  happens  with  illegal  border  crossers,  for  an  initial  period  of  two  years.  The  storage 
period could be extended in case the person is apprehended again.  

The Commission intends to propose the storage of data of persons apprehended when illegally 
staying on the EU territory. 

Furthermore,  the  Commission  will  explore,  on  the  basis  of  further  analysis  and  full  impact 
assessment, the possibility to extend the scope of EURODAC with a view to use its data for 
law  enforcement  purposes  and  as  a  means  to  contribute  to  the  fight  against  illegal 
immigration. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
3. 

ANALYSIS OF DUBLIN FLOWS 

Dublin flows in 2005 

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

DE
PL
NL
SK
IT
UK
GR
ES
AT
HU
CZ
SI
LU
IE
MT
PT
LT
LT
CY
EE
IS
BE
FI
SE
NO
FR

incoming transfers
2716
1196
862
453
419
366
350
315
805
160
114
87
72
45
39
16
15
2
2
1
1
180
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

outgoing transfers
2748
148
982
32
47
1824
6
52
589
6
359
5
257
262
1
5
4
0
0
1
19
N/A
735
N/A
848
N/A

Contrary to a widely shared supposition that the majority of transfers are directed towards the 
Member  States  located  at  an  external  border,  it  appears  that  the  overall  allocation  between 
border and non-border Member States is actually rather balanced. In 2005, the total number of 
all transfers to EU external border Member States was 3 055, while there were 5 161 transfers 
to non-border Member States. 

The  working  document  contains  a  detailed  analysis  attempting  to  determine  to  what  extent 
these Dublin flows have affected the overall asylum seeker population in the Member States. 
In a nutshell, it appears that Dublin transfers did not increase or decrease the total number of 
asylum seekers by more than 5% in most Member States. However, in the case of Poland, the 
increase  was  around  20%  and  in  the  case  of  Slovakia,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Hungary  and 
Portugal, around 10%. On the other hand, in the case of Luxembourg and Iceland, the number 
of asylum seekers decreased by around 20%.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
Such a trend was also confirmed in the hypothetical case where all accepted transfers would 
be carried out, though with a much higher impact in the case of Hungary, Poland and Slovakia 
(increase  of  around  40%).  Nevertheless,  even  in  this  case,  there  would  be  more  transfers  to 
non-border Member States (13 968) than to EU border ones (7 829). 

It should be noted, however, that the majority of transfers correspond to "take back" cases10, 
which,  for  the  most  part,  do  not  correspond  to  new  asylum  applications  for  the  destination 
Member States, since the applications were already registered in the asylum statistics and the 
examination of the application had already started. 

It is worth noting also that results of searches of "category 1 transactions" against "category 2 
transactions"  show  that  those  asylum  seekers  who  had  entered  EU  territory  illegally  before 
lodging  their  application,  transited  mainly  via  Spain,  Italy  and  Greece.  However,  most 
persons apprehended at the border of these Member States subsequently applied for asylum in 
the same state they entered irregularly. On the other hand, those who did not apply for asylum 
and travelled further, headed mainly for the UK and France. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS  

Overall,  the  objectives  of  the  Dublin  system,  notably  to  establish  a  clear  and  workable 
mechanism  for  determining  responsibility  for  asylum  applications,  have,  to  a  large  extent, 
been achieved. 

Owing to the lack of precise data, it was not possible to evaluate one important element of the 
Dublin  system,  namely  its  cost.  However,  Member  States  consider  the  fulfilling  of  the 
political objectives of the system as very important, regardless of its financial implications. 

Nevertheless some concerns remain, both on the practical application and the effectiveness of 
the  system.  The  Commission  will,  therefore,  propose  the  necessary  measures  in  order  to 
resolve these issues and further improve its effectiveness. 

The  present  evaluation  represents  the  first  step  in  launching  a  debate  on  the  future  of  the 
Common European Asylum Policy, which will start with the publication of a comprehensive 
Green Paper by the Commission in June 2007. 

10 

See Table 2 of the working document. 

EN 

13 

   EN