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 comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (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}
Date: 2008-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, admission of aliens, agreement (EU), biometrics, database management system, foreign national, right of asylum, third country

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN 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 comparison of fingerprints for the 
effective application of Regulation (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 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 4 

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 authorities having access to EURODAC which 

hinders the monitoring role of the Commission and the EDPS ................................... 8 

2.3. 

2.4. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ............................................. 9 

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 the problem (‘necessity test’)................................................. 9 

2.4.2.2.  Value added test ......................................................................................................... 10 

2.4.3.  Proportionality ........................................................................................................... 10 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

POLICY OBJECTIVES............................................................................................. 11 

General objectives...................................................................................................... 11 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 11 

Operational objectives................................................................................................ 11 

Fundamental rights..................................................................................................... 12 

POLICY OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 12 

Status quo................................................................................................................... 12 

Action at EU level...................................................................................................... 12 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS ....................................... 15 

Status quo:.................................................................................................................. 15 

Action at EU level...................................................................................................... 16 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................. 27 

Problem 1: Continuing late transmission of fingerprints ........................................... 27 

Problem 2: Impossibility of filtering asylum claims by persons already enjoying 
international protection in a MS................................................................................. 27 

Problem 3: Inefficient management of deletions of data ........................................... 28 

Problem 4: Unclear specification of national authorities having access to 
EURODAC, which hinders the monitoring role of the Commission and the EDPS . 28 

EN 

2 

   EN 

7. 

THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION ..................................................................... 29 

7.1. 

Assessment and considerations of proportionality 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 (including one-off investment costs) .................... 36 

EN 

3 

   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 operations, four annual reports1 have evaluated the activities of the 
EURODAC  Central  Unit.  Moreover,  the  Commission  services  conducted  a  comprehensive 
evaluation  of  the  Dublin  system  covering  the  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 (hereinafter: Evaluation Report), 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 shortcomings and problems in transposition. 

Beyond  the  Evaluation  Report,  a  number  of  other  reports  fed  into  this  IA.  A  technical 
evaluation  of  DubliNet  was  carried  out  in  2005.  The  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor 
(hereinafter: EDPS) has been inspecting the application of the Eurodac Regulation from a data 
protection point of view and issued an inspection report in July 20073 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 security 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  October  2007,  where  Member  States  discussed 
issue  of  delays  in  transmissions,  endorsed  the  possibility  of  recording  reasons  for  deletions 
and  the  technical  functionality  for  mutual  information  about  deletions  affecting  several 
Member  States,  and  expressed  an  interest  in  obtaining  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 the consultations on the Green Paper on the 
future Common Asylum System7) was used as an essential reference. 

An Inter-Service Steering Group was convened on 20 June 2008, attended by DGs RELEX, 
SANCO and EAC.  

1 

2 

3 

4 
5 

6 

7 

First  annual  report  to  the  Council  and  the  European  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 EURODAC Central Unit, SEC(2006) 1170; Annual report 
to the Council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit in 2006, 
SEC (2007) 1184. 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  evaluation  of  the 
Dublin system, SEC(2007) 742. 
Eurodac Supervision Coordination Group, Report of the first coordinated inspection, Brussels, 17 July 
2007. 
Coordinated Supervision of Eurodac — Activity Report 2005-2007, 21 April 2008. 
‘Report on the EURODAC audit’, document classified as EU RESTRICTED, short summary available 
at 
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Supervision/Eurodac/07
-11-09_Eurodac_audit_summary_EN.pdf. 
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. 
COM (2007)301. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
The Commission’s Impact Assessment 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  sections  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  responsible  for  examining  applications  for  asylum 
lodged  in  one  of  the  Member  States  of  the  European  Communities8  (hereinafter:  Dublin 
Convention)  was  signed  on  15  June  1990  in  Dublin.  To  facilitate  the  identification  of  third 
country nationals who fall under the scope of the Convention, a Community-wide system for 
the  comparison  of  the  fingerprints  of  asylum  applicants  was  established,  and  named 
EURODAC.9 

The  conclusions  of  the  Tampere  European  Council  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  examining  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  implementing  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  accession  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  for  the  modification  of  the  Regulation,  the 
present  Impact  Assessment  (IA)  deals  with  problems  identified  in  the  Evaluation  Report  in 
order to update the system based on the experiences of the past 5 years of operations.  

The Commission recalls that its legislative proposals in this field have to be compatible with 
the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (CFREU)  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  right  to  the  protection  of  personal 
data, which applies to all cases where fingerprints are taken, and Article 18 guaranteeing the 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

OJ C 254, 19.8.1997, p.1. 
For a description of the EURODAC system, cf. Annex 1. 
OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p.1. 
OJ L 222, 5.9.2003, p.3. 
OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p.1. 
COM(2008) 360. 
COM(2005) 172, 27.4.2005. 

EN 

5 

   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  fingerprints  of  asylum  applicants  and  others.  This 
necessitates  prompt  and  impartial  investigation  of  any  credible  allegations  of  violations  of 
fundamental  rights.  In  addition,  special  attention  should  be  devoted  to  the  protection  of  the 
rights of the child (Article 24 of CFREU). 

It  has  to  be  mentioned  here  that  the  long-term  management  of  the  second  generation 
Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS), EURODAC and 
other  large  scale  IT  systems  in  the  area  of  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security  is  subject  to  a 
separate  IA  currently  under  finalisation.  This  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 the 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  identified  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  provides  only  a  very  vague  deadline  for  the  transmission  of 
fingerprints  to  the  CU:  Member  States  are  required  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 States, little progress has been observed since the 
installation of EURODAC, 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  contrary  to  the  responsibility  principles  laid 
down in the Dublin Regulation. Two kinds of scenarios may occur: First, the scenario of the 
so-called  ‘wrong  hit’.  A  third-country  national  lodges  an  asylum  application  in  a  Member 
State A (MS A), whose authorities take his/her fingerprints. While those fingerprints are still 
waiting to be transmitted to the Central Unit (category 1 transaction, hereinafter CAT1), the 
same  person  could  already  present  him/herself  in  another  Member  State  B  (MS  B)  and  ask 
again for asylum. If this MS B sends the fingerprints first, the fingerprints 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  being  responsible  instead  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  connection  with  an  irregular  border  crossing  and  his/her 
fingerprints are taken by the authorities of the MS A he/she entered. While those fingerprints 
are  still  waiting  to  be  transmitted  to  the  Central  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 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
application. At that occasion, his/her fingerprints are taken by the authorities of MS B. If this 
MS  B  sends  the  fingerprints  (CAT1)  first,  the  Central  Unit  would  simply  register  a  CAT1 
transaction,  and  hence  MS  B  would  handle  the  application  (instead  of  MS  A  where  he/she 
previously  illegally  entered  the  territory  of  the  Member  States).  Therefore,  when  the  CAT2 
transaction of MS A arrives later 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 2007, 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 have to ask the Central Unit to block the data 
of persons who are recognised as refugees. If a hit occurs against data of a person who was 
fingerprinted  as  an  asylum  seeker  but  whose  data  was  later  on  blocked  by  a  Member  State 
because  it  recognised  her/him  as  a  refugee,  the  Central  Unit  records  the  hit  for  statistical 
purposes but sends a ‘no-hit’ reply to the Member State of origin.  

The reason behind the formulation of this provision 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  for  the  purposes  for  which  data 
were collected.  

The Regulation in force stipulates, however, that five years after Eurodac starts operations, a 
decision  would  be  taken  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Treaty,  as  to 
whether the data relating to persons 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 refugees lodged a second asylum application in the same Member 
State  as  the  one  which  granted  the  refugee  status  or  in  another  Member  State.18  This 
phenomenon goes against the underlying principles of the Dublin system, since without being 
able to see the hits against the presently blocked 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 

17 

18 

It  was  the  same  MS  which,  since  it  did  not  transmit  the  fingerprints  in  time,  was  not  determined 
responsible. 
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). 
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 

7 

   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 obligatory to delete from 
the database all data on data subjects once they have been issued with a residence permit or 
granted  citizenship  or  upon  their  departure  from  the  EU  territory.  However,  at  present, 
Member  States  have  no  means  to  inform  and  be  informed  about  advance  data  erasure  by 
another  Member  State  of  origin,  which  means  that  they  cannot  apply  the  provisions  on 
advance data erasure, and therefore some data might be stored in the database 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  which  allows  the  identification  of 
data  subjects  for  longer  than  is  necessary  for  the  purposes  for  which  data  were  collected’ 
cannot  therefore  be  sufficiently  monitored.  This  is  a  serious  breach  of  data  protection 
principles,  which  require  data  to  be  deleted  when  their  storage  is  no  longer  necessary,  and 
raises doubts about the compliance of Member States with data protection obligations. 

2.2.4.  Unclear  specification  of  national  authorities  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 data recorded in the Eurodac central database, for the purposes 
laid  down  in  the  Eurodac  Regulation.  From  a  data  protection  point  of  view,  the  relevant 
provisions in force can be considered too vague, since Member States may communicate an 
indefinite list of ‘authorities’ without any detail on the exact nature 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 exercise its monitoring 
role.  

The  report  of  the  first  coordinated  inspection  of  the  EURODAC  Supervision  Coordination 
Group of 17 July 2007 identified as a problem the fact that the Regulation in force does not 
impose  a  particular  structure  or  nature  of  the  authority  in  charge  of  the  management  of 
EURODAC data. It furthermore recommended that national EURODAC authorities identify 
clearly  the  responsibilities  of  the  different  services  using  EURODAC  in  their  respective 
Member States and that the number of authorities having access to the results of EURODAC 
searches must be limited.  

Consequently,  the  EDPS  and  national  data  protection  authorities  (DPAs)  rightly  fear  they 
cannot correctly assess whether all data protection rules are correctly applied in the context of 
the Eurodac Regulation, as they do not know who exactly is accessing data in each Member 

EN 

8 

   EN 

State.  This  raises  concerns  regarding  Member  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 described above. Due to 
the complexity of the  Dublin  and  EURODAC  Regulations, there are still many  possibilities 
for improvement and alignment of Member States’ 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  use  of  practical  cooperation  among 
Member  States  striving  to  align  their  interpretation  and  practical  understanding  of  the 
provisions of the Regulation (at the time adopted unanimously by the Council and therefore 
containing  important  compromises)  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  certain  issues  (vague 
deadlines, lack of effective monitoring 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  wording  of  the  Regulation  will  not  be  sufficient  to 
ensure a high standard of efficiency in supporting 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 application 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, asylum, 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 accordance with Article 5 TEC, i.e. if and in 
so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member 
States  and  can,  therefore,  by  reason  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  State  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  level  are  clearly  expressed  in  the  paragraphs 
below, where the necessity test, based on the transnational 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  other  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 efficient and consistent system for EURODAC.  

The problems relating to asylum and refugee protection 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  regarding  the  Eurodac  Regulation.  Although  a 
significant level of harmonisation was reached in the Regulation adopted in 2000, there is still 

EN 

9 

   EN 

room  for  improvement  in  the  support  that  Eurodac  provides  for  implementing  the  Dublin 
Regulation. The need for EU action regarding the management of an EU database created to 
support  the  implementation  of  a  Regulation  on  transnational  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 transnational nature of the problem.  

Without appropriate measures at EU level, 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 efficient and consistent system for EURODAC in the 
framework  of  the  second  phase  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  (CEAS).  Each 
suboption  is  assessed  below  so  as  to  arrive  at  an  ideal  balance  between  practical  value  and 
efforts needed. Therefore, opting for EU action on the problems outlined above does not go 
beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of solving those problems. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

3. 

POLICY OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General objectives 

3.1.1.  To enable more efficient determination of the Member State responsible for assessing 

asylum applications19 

3.1.2.  To better address data protection concerns  

Specific objectives 

3.2. 
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  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 Regulation23 

Operational objectives 

3.3. 
3.3.1.  To avoid ‘wrong hits’ and ‘missed hits24 
3.3.2.  To ensure that asylum applications of refugees are not processed25 

3.3.3.  To ensure that data are deleted in circumstances specified 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 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

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 Member States (Dublin system, including EURODAC)’, 
connected to specific objectives 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, between Member States and between the EU and third 
countries; to prevent asylum shopping and secondary movements. 
Addresses the problems identified in 2.2.1 and the general objective 3.1.1.1. 
Addresses the problems identified in 2.2.2 and the general objective 3.1.1.1. 
Addresses the problems identified in 2.2.3 and the general objective 3.1.1.2. 
Addresses the problems identified in 2.2.4 and the general objective 3.1.1.2. 
Linked to the specific objective in 3.2.1.1. 
Linked to the specific objective in 3.2.1.2. 
Linked to the specific objective in 3.2.1.3. 
Linked to the specific objective in 3.2.1.4. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
3.4. 

Fundamental rights 

Positive and negative impacts on relevant fundamental rights have also been considered. 

As the Eurodac Regulation is a technical instrument to aid effective implementation of some 
criteria  of  the  Dublin  Regulation,  the  impacts  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  above,  the  present  IA  considers  a  number  of 
technical problems that are not necessarily closely interlinked.  

Therefore,  policy  suboptions  for  each  separate  problem  were  drawn  up  and  assessed. 
Consequently,  the  final  preferred  policy  option  is  a  combination  of  the  preferred  policy 
options  for  the  individual  suboptions.  Given  the  different  technical  nature  of  the  individual 
problems, there will be few if any synergies between the preferred policy suboptions.  

In  the  framework  of  the  IA  on  CEAS  the  policy  option  ‘Further  harmonisation  of  EU 
legislation  associated  with  cooperation  and  harmonisation  of  best  practices’  was  chosen  as 
the  preferred  option.  The  following  policy  options  are  designed  in  the  framework  of  this 
general preferred policy option. 

4.1. 

Status quo 

If no EU action is taken, the imperfect application of some vague provisions of the Regulation 
will continue to undermine the effective support to the application of the 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 EURODAC, no Member State 
is expected to be motivated to apply Eurodac rules strictly if it knows that others do not and 
that  the  Commission  does  not  have  sufficient  means  of  monitoring  to  enable  it  to  take 
appropriate action. The Eurodac system is based on solidarity, which in practice often means 
Member States are only willing to make changes simultaneously with each other.  

4.2. 

Action at EU level 

4.2.1.  Problem 1: Continuing late transmission of fingerprints  

Option A) Facilitating the correct application of the Regulation by services provided by 
the CU 

If  a  Member  State’s  delay  in  sending  fingerprints  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 

29 

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  (hereinafter  referred  to as 
‘the Treaties’).’. 
that:  
Article  8  of 
‘1.  Everyone  has 
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.’ 

the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of 

the  European  Union  stipulates 

the  right 

to 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
Member State of origin reminding them of the 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  order  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  general  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 framework 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  end  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  Member  States  which  currently  send  data  in  a 
shorter period than the number of hours/days to be agreed upon as a deadline 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 granted a status would be erased in advance from 
the EURODAC database and therefore no hit would 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 seekers (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 international 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  stored  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 compulsory except for the cases defined in Article 15(1) 
second subparagraph of Regulation 1560/2003/EC (Dublin Implementing Regulation). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
4.2.3.  Problem 3: Inefficient management of deletions of data 

Option A) Using DubliNet bilateral cooperation 

Member  States  could  exchange  data  on  deletions  and  reasons  for  them  via  DubliNet,  the 
bilateral exchange tool connecting technical national 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 centralised system based on DubliNet 

A  technical  evaluation  of  DubliNet  carried  out  in  2005  outlined  the  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  efficient  handling  of  the  growing  number  of 
transactions passing through DubliNet. It would also allow the creation of reliable automated 
statistics. The automatic collection of statistics based on the transactions between the NAPs 
(National  Access  Point  servers),  could  help  to  solve  difficulties  in  gathering  reliable  and 
complete statistics on the application of the Dublin Regulation.  

Option C) Automated information provided by the CU 

Data have to be deleted in advance from EURODAC if the change of the status of the data 
subject  so  requires  (i.e.  if  he/she  has  obtained  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 that person should be deleted from EURODAC. 
As explained in the problem definition, Member States are currently unaware 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 State  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  automated  message  could  be  sent  to  these  latter 
Member  States.  This  would  allow  them  to  delete  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 obligation to notify relevant details of the designated authority 
to the Commission 

Legislation  giving  the  Commission  the  chance  to  monitor  the  designation  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 application of the Eurodac Regulation. 

Option B) Exchange of information on relevant details of the designated authority in the 
framework of the EURODAC 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 

14 

   EN 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 

As  will  be  clear  from  the  problems  listed  above,  the  present  IA  considers  a  number  of 
technical problems that are not necessarily closely interlinked.  

Therefore,  policy  suboptions  for  each  separate  problem  were  drawn  up  and  assessed. 
Consequently,  the  final  preferred  policy  option  is  a  combination  of  the  preferred  policy 
options  for  the  individual  suboptions.  Given  the  different  technical  nature  of  the  individual 
problems, there will be few if any synergies 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 

small positive impact/minor savings 

medium positive impact/savings 

significant impact/savings 

5.1. 

Status quo: 

-√ 

-√√ 

-√√√ 

0 

√ 

√√ 

√√√ 

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  continue  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 

15 

   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 

To  enable  the  Commission,  the  EDPS 
and national data protection authorities 
to effectively monitor the management of 
access  to  data  in  Eurodac  by  national 
the 
designated 
authorities 
implementation 
Eurodac 
of 
Regulation 

the 

for 

Transposition feasibility  

- Under existing treaty 

- Under new treaty  

Implementation costs 

Should no changes be made to the current practices, an opportunity 
would  be  missed  to  improve  the  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  authorities  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.  

Data protection concerns would continue to prevail as to the exact 
number and nature of staff having access to EURODAC on behalf 
of  the  responsible  authorities  designated  on  the  basis  of  the 
Regulation in force.  

The  policy  option  does  not  provide  for  further  measures  to  be 
transposed  and  therefore  there  are  no  difficulties  or  risks  in  this 
sense. 

The  policy  option  does  not  provide  for  further  measures  to  be 
transposed  and  therefore  there  are  no  difficulties  or  risks  in  this 
sense. 

No additional financial and administrative costs would be incurred 
if preserving the status quo. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5.2. 

Action at EU level 

5.2.1.  Problem 1: Continuing late transmission 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 EURODAC 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  would  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 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

administrative costs for MS 

0 

0 

No administrative burden on the COM is expected, as this option 
entails  changes  in  IT  systems  and  from  there  on  everything  is 
automated. 

No administrative burden on the COM is expected, as this option 

EN 

16 

   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 

costs of implementation (i.e. all costs) 

-√√ 

entails  changes  in  IT  systems  and  from  there  on  everything  is 
automated. 

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 effectively enhances cooperation in 
concrete  cases.  However,  communication  of  every  problem  of 
transmission  (system  downtime,  impossibility  to  fingerprint  the 
applicant,  e.g.  because  his  fingers  are  damaged)  can  overburden 
the  system.  Therefore,  the  principle  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  would  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 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

0 

No  changes  to  the  development  or  configuration  of  the  system 
would be needed.  

administrative costs for MS 

-√ 

costs of implementation (i.e. all costs) 

-√ 

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). 

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 

17 

   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  down  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 responsibility would 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  

Current data protection will remain applicable. 

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

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 Regulation 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  the  deadline,  to  allow  better 
application  of  the  Regulation  and  better  compliance  with  its 
original intention and spirit. Including 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  fingerprints  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  reluctant  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 

18 

   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 

shopping  by 
To  prevent  asylum 
avoiding  processing  asylum  claims 
from refugees 

0 

If  this  option  is  retained,  MSs  would  be  expected  to  erase  in 
advance the data they previously entered in the system as soon as 
they grant international protection31 to the person in question. This 
would  mean 
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  fact  already  enjoys  international 
protection in a MS.  

that  MSs  subsequently 

transmitting  data 

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.  

Minor changes might have to be introduced in the configuration of 
the system.  

No  changes  are  expected  in  the  administrative  burden  on  MSs; 
they  would  just  have  to  erase  relevant  data  instead  of  blocking 
them as currently required.  

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. 

Since the decision to choose between 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 

No  different  impact  is  expected  under  the  two  treaties.  MSs  are 
expected  to  be  reluctant  to  erase  data  on  refugees,  since  in  the 
framework  of  the EURODAC  expert  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. 

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

administrative costs for MS 

0 

0 

costs of implementation (i.e. all costs) 

-√ 

consistency with the asylum acquis  

√√√ 

Implementation feasibility 

- √√ 

Policy Option B: Legislation – store and compare with CAT1 

Option Ba) Store as CAT4 

31 

32 

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. 
‘Asylum shopping’ is a form of secondary movement, where the third-country national, despite the fact 
that  they  have  already  received  international  protection,  applies  again  for  asylum  in  the  same  or  in 
another Member State. 

EN 

19 

   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 

√√√ 

the  Dublin  Regulation.  However, 

Checking  of  whether  a  person  has  been  already  granted  refugee 
status  is  not  expressis  verbis  one  of  the  criteria  to  allocate 
this 
responsibility  under 
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  after  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  have  not  undergone  a  Dublin 
procedure  (e.g.  those  who  are  granted  asylum  as  a  result  of 
resettlement)  would  be  disproportionate  from  both  a  data 
protection and an efficiency 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  data  would  imply  a  change  of 
justified  as  necessary  and 
purpose,  which  needs 
proportionate, in accordance with the law. 

to  be 

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

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) 

-√√√ 

consistency with the asylum acquis  

√ 

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  for  changes  to  local  IT  systems 
and 100 hours per MS to manage contract and test). 

Since the decision to choose between 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 receive international protection as 
CAT4  ‘person  received  international  protection’,  would  not 
directly serve the application of the Dublin Regulation. However, 
it would facilitate decision-making by national asylum authorities 
in conformity with the 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  protection  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 

20 

   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 

√√√ 

the  Dublin  Regulation.  However, 

Checking whether a person has already been granted refugee status 
the  criteria  for  allocating 
is  not  expressis  verbis  one  of 
responsibility  under 
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  after  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 also 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 

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

administrative costs for MS 

0 

0 

costs of implementation (i.e. all costs) 

-√√ 

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 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.  

No administrative cost for COM. 

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).  

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  change  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 Iceland 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  seekers  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 

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 

consistency with the asylum acquis  

√√√ 

Since the decision to choose between 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  international  protection.  This  solution 
conforms  with  the  principles  of  the  Dublin  Regulation  and  it 
would  also 
facilitate  decision-making  by  national  asylum 
authorities  in  conformity  with  the  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 management 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 deleted. However, this option would not 
allow  the  Commission  to  draw  up  proper  statistics  on  the 
breakdown  of  cases  by  reasons  for  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  permit,  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 might know or assume which other 
MSs  had  also  entered  data  on 
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.  

the  same  subject, 

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

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 

22 

   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  

√ 

Implementation feasibility 

-√√ 

As a technical solution for information exchange on the technical 
level,  this  option  is  consistent  with  the  Eurodac  Regulation  and 
aims  to  facilitate  the  application  of  the  Dublin  Regulation,  by 
using 
tool  (DubliNet) 
established  by  the  Implementing  Regulation  (1560/2003/EC)35  of 
that Regulation. As such, it is consistent with the asylum acquis. 

the  secured  bilateral  communication 

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  increase  of  workload  for  their 
national administration. The opinion of the European Parliament is 
not yet known. 

Policy Option B: Establishment of a centralised 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 that 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  through  DubliNet  include  extensive 
personal  information,  significant  data  protection  concerns  arise 
concerning its creation.  

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

-√√√ 

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  establishment  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 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Policy Option B: Establishment of a centralised system based on DubliNet 

Assessment Criteria  

Rating 

Motivation of the rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve the impact 

in  2005  (which  outlined 

However,  when  reacting  to  the  technical  evaluation  of  DubliNet 
carried  out 
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  (along  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  specifying  the  relevant  technical 
functionality  (automated  information  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  permit,  leaving  the  territory  of 
the MSs) would reasonably be expected to be effectively deleted.  

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

0 

No administrative cost for COM. 

administrative costs for MS 

costs of implementation (i.e. all costs) 

-√ 

-√ 

EUR 45 200 per year for MS (based on 200 cases per country and 
0.3 hours per case). 

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  enabling  them  to  be  informed  about 
deletions. The opinion of the European Parliament is also expected 
to be favourable. 

EN 

24 

   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 relevant 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 

data 

national 

To  enable  the  Commission,  the  EDPS 
and 
protection 
authorities  to  effectively  monitor  the 
management  of  access 
in 
EURODAC  by  national  authorities 
designated  for  the  implementation  of 
the EURODAC Regulation 

to  data 

√√√ 

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  dealing  with  the  application  of  the 
EURODAC  Regulations,  it  would  enable  proper  monitoring  of 
MSs’ activities concerning EURODAC.  

impacts on fundamental rights 

√√√ 

Right to asylum: 

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

administrative costs for MS 

costs of implementation (i.e. all costs) 

0 

0 

0 

consistency with the asylum acquis  

√√√ 

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.  

No  administrative  burden  and  no  costs  would  be  incurred  for  the 
Commission. 

No  additional  administrative  burden  would  be  incurred  for  the 
MSs, since the details required would be notified in the same way 
as  any  notification  currently  provided  of  changes  in  the  structure 
of national administrations.  

This  option  would  involve  no  administrative  costs  for  either  the 
Commission or the MSs. 

A  better  definition  of  responsible  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 option. The  opinion of  the  European 
Parliament and the EDPS is also expected to be favourable. 

Policy Option B: Exchange of information on the relevant details on the designated 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 

data 

national 

To  enable  the  Commission,  the  EDPS 
and 
protection 
authorities  to  effectively  monitor  the 
in 
management  of  access 
Eurodac 
authorities 
national 
by 
designated  for  the  implementation  of 
the Eurodac Regulation 

to  data 

√√ 

the  general  notification  procedures  under 

the 
Following 
Regulation  in  force,  MSs  can  regularly  exchange  details  of  their 
designated authorities in the framework of the EURODAC expert 
committee. Cooperation mechanisms could be established between 
this  committee  and  the  EURODAC  EDPS-DPAs36  Coordination 
Meetings.  

36 

National data protection authorities. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Policy Option B: Exchange of information on the relevant details on the designated 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  access  to  EURODAC  information  by 
national  authorities.  However  it  would  provide  no  legal  certainty 
as regards respect for the rights of the data subjects and would not 
facilitate effective supervision.  

administrative 
Commission 

costs 

for 

the 

-√ 

EUR  55 000  (COM  presence  and  preparation  for  2  meetings  and 
travel expenses for 2 expert meetings with all MS)  

administrative costs for MS 

costs of implementation (i.e. all costs) 

consistency with the asylum acquis  

0 

0 

√ 

No  cost,  since  participation  in  the  meetings  of  the  EURODAC 
expert committee is reimbursed by COM. 

Should this option be retained, no administrative costs would arise 
for either the Commission or the MSs. 

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 unfavourable, while that of the European 
Parliament is not yet known. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
6. 

6.1. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

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 

administrative  costs  for 
MS 

0 

0 

costs  of  implementation 
(i.e. all costs) 

-√√ 

consistency  with 
asylum acquis 

the 

√√√ 

implementation 
feasibility  

√√√ 

√ 

√√ 

0 

-√ 

-√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

0 

-√ 

-√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

Policy Option C is the preferred suboption. 

6.2. 

Problem 2: Impossibility of filtering asylum claims by persons already enjoying 
international protection in a MS 

Policy Option A 

Policy Option Ba  

Policy Option Bb 

prevent 

To 
asylum 
shopping  by  avoiding 
asylum 
processing 
claims from refugees 

impacts  on  fundamental 
rights 

administrative  costs  for 
the Commission 

administrative  costs  for 
MS 

0 

0 

0 

costs  of  implementation 
(i.e. all costs) 

-√ 

consistency  with 
asylum acquis 

the 

√√√ 

implementation 
feasibility  

-√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

0 

-√√ 

-√√√ 

√ 

√√ 

√√ 

0 

0 

-√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

Policy Option Bb is the preferred suboption.  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
6.3. 

Problem 3: Inefficient management of deletions of data 

Policy Option A 

Policy Option B  

Policy Option C 

the 
improve 
To 
compulsory  deletion  of 
data 

√ 

impacts  on  fundamental 
rights 

- √√ 

administrative  costs  for 
the Commission 

0 

administrative  costs  for 
MS 

-√√√ 

costs  of  implementation 
(i.e. all costs) 

-√ 

consistency  with 
asylum acquis 

the 

√√√ 

implementation 
feasibility  

-√√√ 

√√ 

-√√√ 

-√√√ 

-√√√ 

-√√√ 

√ 

-√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

0 

-√ 

-√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

Policy Option C is the preferred suboption.  

6.4. 

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 

Policy Option B  

√√√ 

√√ 

To 
the 
enable 
Commission,  the  EDPS 
and 
data 
national 
protection  authorities  to 
the 
effectively  monitor 
management of access to 
in  Eurodac  by 
data 
authorities 
national 
the 
designated 
for 
the 
implementation  of 
Eurodac Regulation 

impacts  on  fundamental 
rights 

√√√ 

administrative  costs  for 
the Commission 

administrative  costs  for 
MS 

costs  of  implementation 
(i.e. all costs) 

0 

0 

0 

consistency  with 
asylum acquis 

the 

√√√ 

√ 

-√ 

0 

0 

√ 

implementation 
feasibility  

√√√ 

-√√√ 

Policy Option A is the preferred suboption. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
7. 

THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION  

With  a  view  to  further  harmonisation  of  national  laws  and  cooperation  between  Member 
States to allow a more effective 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 policy 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  

√√√ 

To prevent asylum shopping by avoiding 
processing asylum claims from refugees  

√√√ 

To  improve  the  compulsory  deletion  of 
data 

To  enable  the  Commission,  the  EDPS 
and national data protection authorities 
to effectively monitor the management of 
access  to  data  in  Eurodac  by  national 
the 
designated 
authorities 
implementation 
Eurodac 
of 
Regulation 

the 

for 

Transposition feasibility  

- Under existing treaty 

- Under new treaty  

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

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.  

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. . 

When  a  MS  deletes  fingerprints  (along  with  the  other  associated 
data)  which  produce  hits  with 
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 deleted, so that no data are kept in the 
database longer than justified.  

the  fingerprints  entered 

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 dealing with the application of the 
Eurodac  Regulations,  it  will  enable  proper  monitoring  of  MSs 
activities concerning EURODAC. 

No  difficulties  or  risks  are  anticipated  regarding  the  combination 
of the preferred suboptions. 

No  difficulties  or  risks  are  anticipated  regarding  the  combination 
of the preferred suboptions. 

Implementation costs 

√√√ 

Cf. Annex 2. 

7.1. 

Assessment and considerations of proportionality and EU added value 

7.1.1.  Proportionality 

Given the aim of a more efficient and consistent system for EURODAC, and the transnational 
nature of the problems identified 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 suboption was assessed so as to represent an ideal 
proportion between practical value and efforts needed.  

EN 

29 

   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  EURODAC  CU  will  be  used  to  monitor  fulfilment  of  the 
operational objectives as described in 3.3.1. (avoiding ‘wrong hits’ and ‘missed hits’), 3.3.2. 
(ensuring that asylum applications of refugees are not processed) and 3.3.3. (ensuring deletion 
of data in circumstances foreseen by the current EURODAC Regulation). Concerning the first 
two  points,  relevant  statistics  are  already  produced  every  month,  as  a  well-established 
practice. Concerning 3.3.3., the preferred solution consists of action by the CU, so monitoring 
of the automated provision of information will be equally unproblematic. 

The fulfilment of operational objective 3.3.4. (enabling the Commission 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  revised  Regulation  is  effectively  enforced  in  the 
Member  States,  regular  evaluation  within  the  framework  of  the  overall  assessment  of  the 
Dublin system is suggested. Further regular EURODAC expert meetings will be organised to 
enhance the effects of the combination of preferred suboptions. 

EN 

30 

   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  refugee  rights.  It  is  granted  to  a 
person who is unable to seek protection in his/her country of citizenship and/or residence in 
particular for fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of 
a particular social group or political opinion.  

Common European Asylum System  

Rules and principles at European Union level 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  establishment  of  the  common 
European  asylum  system  started  with  the  adoption  of  The  Hague  programme  in  November 
2004.  

Non-refoulement  

The  key  principle  of  international  refugee  law,  which  requires  that  no  State  shall  return  a 
refugee  in  any  manner  to  a  country  where  his/her  life  or  freedom  may  be  endangered.  The 
principle also encompasses non-rejection at the frontier. Its provision is contained in Article 
33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and constitutes the legal basis 
for States’ obligation to provide international protection to those in need of it. Article 33(1) 
reads  as  follows:  ‘No Contracting  State  shall  expel  or  return  (refouler)  a  refugee  in  any 
manner  whatsoever  to  the  frontiers  of  territories  where  his  life  or  freedom  would  be 
threatened  on  account  of  his  race,  religion,  nationality,  membership  of  a  particular  social 
group or political opinion’. Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in the light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of 
Human  Rights  and  Article  3  of  the  UN  Convention  Against  Torture  and  Other  Cruel, 
Inhumane  and  Degrading  Treatment  or  Punishment,  are  also  considered  as  bases  for  ‘non-
refoulement’ obligations. 

Refugee  

A person who fulfils the requirements of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention. Article 1(A) 
defines  a  refugee  as  any  person  who,  owing  to  a  well-founded  fear  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 habitual 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 instruments as the status granted by a Member State to a 
person who is a refugee and admitted as such to the territory of that Member State. In terms of 
the  Geneva  Convention,  refugee  status  is  defined  as  the  status  possessed  by  a  person  who 
fulfils the requirements of the refugee definition 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 established by the Treaty of Amsterdam in the area 

EN 

31 

   EN 

of Justice and Home Affairs. The Council set ambitious objectives and deadlines for action in 
all relevant areas, including asylum and immigration, police and justice cooperation and the 
fight against crime.  

The Hague programme 

The Tampere programme, adopted at the Tampere 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  Hague  programme,  which  covers  the  period  2005–
2010,  and  provides,  among  other  goals,  for  the  continuation  of  the  efforts  in  establishing 
common European asylum and immigration policies. 

EN 

32 

   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 ‘EURODAC’ (hereinafter: EURODAC Regulation) 
came  into  force  on  15  December  2000  and  the  Community-wide  information  technology 
system  for  the  comparison  of  the  fingerprints  of  asylum  seekers  started  operation  on  15 
January 2003.37 Member States anticipated that identifying 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 Convention. At the time of the adoption of the Eurodac Regulation, 
work  had  already  started  for  the  adoption  of  a  Community  instrument  replacing  the  Dublin 
Convention, as the European Council 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 Regulation 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 application 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 system 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 Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) 
which  shall  receive  data  and  transmit  ‘hit  —  no  hit’  replies  to  the  national  Units  (to  the 
National  Access  Point  [NAP]  servers)  in  each  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  applicants  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 exception of one specific case (an 
individual who obtains the nationality of one of the Member States, in which case the data of 
the person concerned will be erased); 

37 

38 
39 

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. 
A situation where all MS claim not to be responsible for examining an asylum application. 
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 

33 

   EN 

                                                 
Category 2 (hereinafter CAT2): data of aliens apprehended 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 receives 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  taken  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 the 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 the Central Unit and (in case of CAT1 and CAT3 
transactions) receives the results of the comparison. 

Hit 

According to Article 2(1) (e), a ‘hit’ is a match or matches between fingerprint data recorded 
in  the  database  and  those  transmitted  by  a  Member  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  Regulation,  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 Member 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 residence 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  Regulation  provides  for  the  creation  of  a  secure  electronic 
transmission channel between the responsible authorities 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 technical 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  telecommunications  infrastructure  based  on  IP  (internet 
protocol). 

EN 

34 

   EN 

The  use  of  DubliNet  is  always  compulsory  except  for  the  cases  defined  in  Article  15(1) 
second subparagraph of Regulation 1560/2003/EC (Dublin Implementing Regulation).40 

Statistics: 

EURODAC  began  its  operations  on  15  January  2003.  On  31  December  2007,  its  central 
database  contained  1 005 323  sets  of  fingerprints  of  asylum  seekers  and  80 923  data  sets  of 
persons apprehended in connection with an irregular crossing of the external border.  
The EURODAC system was designed to be capable 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 the upper limit of its storage capacity.  

The total of successful transactions sent to the CU in 2007 totalled 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 connection with the irregular crossing of an external border). 

40 

41 

42 
43 

‘By  way  of  derogation  from  the  first  subparagraph,  correspondence  between  the  departments 
responsible  for  carrying  out  transfers  and  competent  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.’. 
The  Commission  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the Dublin system, SEC(2007) 742 of 6 June 
2007. 
See footnote 24. 
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  the dependants of  asylum  applicants are  included  in 
their asylum data. EURODAC contains fingerprints of asylum seekers from the age of 14 onwards. 

EN 

35 

   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 
obligation 

of 

Description 
required action(s) 

of 

 Target group 

Tariff 
(€ 
hour) 

per 

Time  
(hour) 

Price 
(per 
action 
or 
equip) 

Freq  
(per 
year) 

Nbr  
of  
entities 

Total 
of  
actions 

nbr

Total 
recurring cost  

yearly 

Total  one  time 
cost  

1 

Problem 2 — 
Option Bb  

Adapt 
system 

IT 

Implementing 
changes 
the 
to 
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. 

2 

Problem 2 — 
Option Bb  

Adapt 
system 

IT 

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 

1 

3 

Problem 3 — 
Option C  

Sending 
delete 
transaction 
to 
EURODAC 

Consult 
local 
systems,  delete  if 
and 
necessary 
keep 
of 
deletions 

track 

EU27 + NO + 
IS 

26  

0.30  

200.00 

29 

29 

45 240 

4 

Problem  3  — 
Option C  

Adapt 
system 

IT 

Implementing 
changes 
the 
to 
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. 

5 

Problem 3 — 
Option C  

Adapt 
system 

IT 

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 

1 

84 500 

370 000 

80 500 

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 parameters were taken into account: number of deletions last 12 months – average number of hits – estimated growth of the number of 
deletions. The result was divided amongst EURODAC Members, giving a result of +/- 200 per MS. 0.3 hours is an estimate taking into account that these actions can 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: Eurostat: Average hourly labour costs, defined as total labour costs 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 overheads of 10% have been added.  

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=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, defined 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 overheads of 10% have been added. 

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_popul
ation/C/C4/C43/dbb10000 

EN 

   EN