Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit in 2007
Date: 2009-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU visa policy, activity report, admission of aliens, biometrics, database management system, foreign national, identity document, information system, right of asylum

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 26.1.2009 
COM(2009) 13 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the activities of the 
EURODAC Central Unit in 2007 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the activities of the 
EURODAC Central Unit in 2007 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Scope  

1.2. 

the 
Council  Regulation  EC/2725/2000  of  11  December  2000,  concerning 
establishment  of  ‘EURODAC’  for  the  comparison  of  fingerprints  for  the  effective 
application  of  the  Dublin  Convention  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “EURODAC 
Regulation”),1  stipulates  that  the  Commission  shall  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  an  annual  report  on  the  activities  of  the  Central  Unit.2 
The  present  fifth  annual  report  includes  information  on  the  management  and  the 
performance of the system in 2007. It assesses the output and the cost-effectiveness 
of EURODAC, as well as the quality of its Central Unit’s service.  

Legal and policy developments 
In  June  2007,  on  the  basis  of  the  previous  annual  reports3  and  consultation  of 
Member States, the Commission published its report on the evaluation of the Dublin 
system4 (hereinafter: Evaluation Report) covering the first 3 years of the operation of 
EURODAC (2003-2005). It identified certain issues related to the efficiency of the 
current  legislative  provisions  and  announced  measures  to  be  taken  in  order  to 
improve EURODAC's support to facilitate the application of the Dublin Regulation.  

In  order  to  address  these  issues,  the  Commission  put  forward  a  proposal  for 
amending the Eurodac Regulation on 3 December 2008.5  

In 2007, important changes in the geographical scope of the EURODAC Regulation 
took  place:  Bulgaria  and  Romania  acceded  to  the  European  Union  and  (after 
notifying  the  Commission  of  their  readiness  to  participate  in  the  system  in 
accordance  with  Article  27(2)a  of  the  EURODAC  Regulation)  connected  to 
EURODAC on 1st January 2007.6  

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 

6 

OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p.1. 
Article 24(1) EURODAC Regulation.  
The previous annual reports were published as Commission Staff Working Papers with the following 
references: SEC(2004) 557, SEC(2005) 839, SEC(2006) 1170, SEC (2007) 1184. 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  evaluation  of  the 
Dublin system, COM (2007) 299 final {SEC(2007) 742}. 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing 'EURODAC' for 
the  comparison  of  fingerprints  for  the  effective  application  of  the  Dublin  Regulation,  COM(2008) 
XXX. 
The Commission services provided assistance to them to link up with the EURODAC system, including 
prior operational testing, which involved 69 tests. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
2. 

THE EURODAC CENTRAL UNIT

7 

2.1.  Management of the system  

Given the increasing amount of data to manage (some categories of transactions have 
to  be  stored  for  10  years),  the  natural  obsolescence  of  the  technical  platform 
(delivered  in  2001)  and  the  unpredictable  trends  of  the  EURODAC  transaction 
volume  due  to  the  accession  of  new  Member  States,8  an  upgrading  of  the 
EURODAC  system  has  to  be  carried  out,  which  is  planned  to  be  finalised  in  the 
second  half  of  2009.  However,  the  essential  upgrades  have  already  been 
implemented.  In  particular,  the  EURODAC  Business  Continuity  System  has  been 
upgraded in order to be able to fully support the Member States in case of prolonged 
Central  Unit  unavailability.  The  Commission  signed  the  "secure-Trans  European 
Services  for  Telematics  between  Administrations  (s-TESTA)  network"  contract  in 
2006.  During  2007,  the  migration  of  Member  States  from  the  previously  used 
TESTA II network to S-TESTA started with 18 Member States migrating to this new 
system providing a higher level of security and reliability.  

2.2. 

Quality of service and cost-effectiveness  

The  Commission  has  taken  the  utmost  care  to  deliver  a  high  quality  service  to  the 
Member States, who are the final end-users of the EURODAC Central Unit.9 There 
was  no  unscheduled  system  down-time  in  2007,  but  at  the  end  of  April  the  system 
was isolated due to an outage of the TESTA II network which lasted 50 hours. The 
new sTESTA network (replacing TESTA II) provides a higher level of security and 
availability. In 2007, the EURODAC Central Unit was available 99.43% of the time.  

One  "false  hit",  ie.  wrong  identification  performed  by  the  AFIS,  was  reported  in 
2007, being the first false hit reported from a tenprint search in EURODAC since the 
beginning  of  the  activities  of  the  system.  Although  Member  States  are  required  to 
verify all hits immediately, as described in Article 4(6) of the EURODAC Regulation 
2725/2000/EC,  they  are  currently  not  obliged  to  notify  the  Commission  of  false 
hits.10 However, with one false hit reported out of more than 1.1 million searches and 
more than 200.000 hits the system can still be considered extremely accurate. 

After  five  years  of  operation,  Community  expenditure  on  all  externalised  activities 
specific  to  EURODAC  totalled  €  8,1  milli on.  The  expenditure  for  maintaining  and 
operating  the  Central  Unit  in  2007  was  €  820.791,05.  The  increase  on  this 
expenditure  compared  to  the  previous  years  is  mainly  due  to  increasing  system 
maintenance  costs  and  an  essential  upgrade  of  the  capacity  of  the  Business 
Continuity System. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

A general description of the EURODAC Central Unit, as well as the definitions of the different types of 
transactions  processed  by  the  Central  Unit  and  of  the  hits  they  can  create,  can  be  found  in  the  first 
annual report on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit. See Commission Staff Working Paper - 
First  annual  report  to  the  council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the  activities  of  the  EURODAC 
Central Unit, SEC (2004)557, p.6. 
All EU Member States, as well as Norway and Iceland, apply the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations, 
therefore the notion "Member States" is used in this Communication to cover the 29 States using the 
EURODAC database.  
These  services  not  only  include  those  provided  directly  by  the  Central  Unit  (e.g.  matching  capacity, 
storage of data,  etc), but  cover  also  communication  and security  services  for  the  transmission of data 
between the Central Unit and the National Access Points. 
The Commission has proposed to add the obligation for Member States to inform about any false hit in 
the revision of the EURODAC Regulation.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Savings for the EURODAC expenditure were made possible by the efficient use of 
existing resources and infrastructures managed by the Commission, such as the use 
of the TESTA network. 

The  Community  also  provided  (via  the  IDA  Programme)  the  communication  and 
security services for exchange of data between the Central and National Units. These 
costs, initially intended to be borne by each Member State in accordance with Article 
21 (2) and (3) of the Regulation, were finally covered by the Community making use 
of common available infrastructures, thereby generating savings for national budgets. 

2.3. 

Data protection and data security 

Although  statistics  show  a  clear  decrease  in  the  number  of  cases  where  the  unique 
search function of "special searches" were run by Member States, the Commission is 
still concerned about its use and considers the number of such searches (195 in 2007, 
varying from zero to 88 (per Member State) still too high. As discussed in previous 
annual  reports  as  well  as  in  the  Evaluation  Report,  this  category  of  transactions  is 
established by Article 18 paragraph 2 of the EURODAC Regulation. Reflecting the 
data protection rules to safeguard the rights of the data subject to access his/her own 
data, this provision provides for a possibility to conduct such "special searches" on 
the  request  of  the  person  whose  data  are  stored  in  the  central  database.  To  better 
monitor  this  phenomenon,  the  Commission  has  included  in  its  proposal  for 
amendment of the EURODAC Regulation a requirement for Member States to send a 
copy  of  the  data  subject's  request  for  access  to  the  competent  national  supervisory 
authority. 

In  consultation  with  the  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  (EDPS),  the 
Commission  is  committed  to  taking  steps  against  Member  States  which  persist  in 
misusing this important data-protection related provision.  

In compliance with Article 20(2) of the Regulation, the EDPS drew up an in-depth IT 
security  audit  of  the  EURODAC  Central  Unit11  in  November  2007.  The  security 
policy and security concept will be redefined in line with the recommendations and 
the methodology used during this audit.  

3. 

FIGURES AND FINDINGS 

The  annex  attached  to  the  present  annual  report  contains  tables  with  factual  data 
produced  by  the  Central  Unit  for  the  period  01.01.2007  –  31.12.2007.  The 
EURODAC statistics are based on records of fingerprints from all individuals aged 
14 years or over who have made applications for asylum in the Member States, who 
were  apprehended  when  crossing  a  Member  State's  external  border  irregularly,  or 
who  were  found  illegally  present  on  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  (in  case  the 
competent  authorities  consider  it  necessary  to  check  a  potential  prior  asylum 
application). 

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 
provided  by  the  Ministries  of  Justice  and  of  the  Interior.  There  are  a  number  of 

11 

"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  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
methodological  reasons  for  the  differences.  The  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 the dependants of 
asylum  applicants  are  included  in  their  asylum  data.  There  are  also  differences  in 
how repeat applications are accounted for in the statistics. 

3.1. 

Successful transactions 

A “successful transaction” is a transaction which has been correctly processed by the 
Central  Unit,  without  rejection  due  to  a  data  validation  issue,  fingerprint  errors  or 
insufficient quality.12 

In 2007, the Central Unit received a total of 300.018 successful transactions, which is 
an  overall  increase  compared  to  2006  (270.611).  After  a  drop  between  2005  and 
2006,  the  2007  EURODAC  statistics  reveal  a  19%  rise  (197.284  compared  to 
165.958  in  2006)  in  the  number  of  transactions  of  data  of  asylum  seekers  
("category 1"13). Such an increase reflects the general rise in the number of asylum 
applications in the EU in 2007.  

The  trend  regarding  the  number  of  persons  who  were  apprehended  in  connection 
with  an  irregular  crossing  of  an  external  border  ("category  2"14)  also  changed  in 
2007. After a significant increase between 2004 (16.183) through 2005 (25.162) and 
2006  (41.312),  a  drop  of  8%  was  experienced  in  2007  (38.173).  One  can  note  that 
Italy (15.053), Greece (11.376) and Spain (9.044) introduce the vast majority of the 
category 2 fingerprints, followed by Hungary (894), the United Kingdom (480) and 
Malta  (384).  However,  the  problem  of  Member  States'  reluctance  to  systematically 
send  "category  2"  transactions  pointed  out  in  the  Evaluation  Report  still  prevails. 
Contrary to the obligation in Article 8(1) of the EURODAC Regulation, 8 Member 
States (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Luxemburg 
and Portugal) did not send any "category 2” transactions in 2007.  
No major changes in the use of the option of sending15 “category 3”16 transactions 
(data  of  persons  apprehended  when  illegally  residing  on  the  territory  of  a  Member 
State)  were  noted  in  2007.  Only  an  increase  of  2%  can  be  observed:  64.561 
compared  to  63.341  in  2006.  Ireland  and  Malta  did  not  send  any  "category  3" 
transactions.  

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Table  2  of  the  Annex  details  the  successful  transactions  per  Member  State,  with  a  breakdown  by 
category, between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2007. 
Data  of  asylum  applications.  Fingerprints  (full  10  print  images)  of  asylum  applicants  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). These data will be kept for 10 years with the exception of some specific cases foreseen in 
the Regulation (for instance an individual who obtains the nationality of one of the Member States) in 
which cases the data of the person concerned will be erased. 
Data  of aliens  apprehended  in  connection  with  the  irregular  crossing  of  an  external  border  and 
who were not turned back. These data (full 10 print images) are sent for storage only, in order to be 
compared against data of asylum applicants submitted subsequently to the Central Unit. These data will 
be kept for two years with the exception that cases 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. 
And  thereby  compare  the  data  of  third  country  nationals  apprehended  when  illegally  staying  on  the 
territory with the previously recorded fingerprints of asylum seekers.  
Data relating to aliens found illegally present in a Member State. These data, which are not stored, 
are searched against the data of asylum applicants stored in the central database. The transmission of 
this category of data is optional for the Member States. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

“Hits”  

3.2.1.  “Category 1 against category 1” hits 

Table  3  of  the  Annex  shows  for  each  Member  State  the  number  of  asylum 
applications  which  corresponded  to  asylum  applications  previously  registered  in 
another ("foreign hits") or in the same Member State ("local hits"17). It also gives an 
indication of the secondary movements of asylum seekers in the EU. Apart from the 
'logical'  routes  between  neighbouring  Member  States,  one  can  note  that  a  high 
number (1.11618) of asylum applicants in France previously lodged their application 
in  Poland,  or  that  the  highest  amount  of  foreign  hits  in  Greece  (177)  and  in  Italy 
(287) were found against data of asylum applicants recorded in the United Kingdom. 
In  the  latter  case,  the  flows  are  symmetric  and  most  of  the  hits  on  "category  1" 
transactions  introduced  by  the  United  Kingdom  occur  on  data  submitted  by  Italy 
(370).  It  is  striking  that  44,37%  of  the  subsequent  applications  were  lodged  in  the 
same Member State as the previous one. In Cyprus (87%), Poland (82%), Hungary 
(75%) and the Czech Republic (61%), well over half of the subsequent applications 
were lodged in the same Member State.  

3.2.2.  Multiple asylum applications 

From a total of 197.284 asylum applications recorded in EURODAC in 2007, 31.910 
applications were 'multiple asylum applications', which means that in 31.910 cases, 
the  fingerprints  of  the  same  person  had  already  been  recorded  as  a  "category  1" 
transaction  (in  the  same  or  in  another  Member  State).  The  first  reading  of  the 
statistics of the system would therefore suggest that 16% of the asylum applications 
in  2007  were  subsequent  (i.e.  second  or  more)  asylum  applications,  representing  a 
drop  of  1%  compared  to  the  previous  year.  The  transmission  of  a  "category  1" 
transaction does not however mean in each and every case that the person in question 
made  a  new  asylum  application.  In  fact,  the  practice  of  some  Member  States  to 
fingerprint upon take back under the Dublin Regulation results in a distortion of the 
statistics  on  multiple  applications:  taking  and  transmitting  again  the  fingerprints  of 
the  applicant  upon  arrival  after  a  transfer  under  the  Dublin  Regulation  falsely 
indicates  that  the  applicant  applied  again  for  asylum.  The  Commission  intends  to 
solve  this  problem  and,  in  its  proposal  for  the  amendment  of  the  EURODAC 
Regulation, has introduced the requirement that transfers should not be registered as 
new asylum applications.  

3.2.3.  “Category 1 against category 2” hits 

These hits give an indication of routes taken by persons who irregularly entered the 
territory of the European Union, before applying for asylum. As in the previous year, 
most  hits  occur  against  data  sent  by  Greece  and  Italy  and  to  a  much  lesser  extent, 

17 

18 

The statistics concerning local hits shown in the tables may not necessarily correspond to the hit replies 
transmitted by the Central Unit and recorded by the Member States. The reason for this is that Member 
States do not always use the option, provided by Art. 4(4), which requests the Central Unit to search 
against their own data already stored in the Central database. However, even when Member States do 
not make use of this option, the Central Unit must, for technical reasons, always perform a comparison 
against all data (national and foreign) stored in the Central Unit. In these concrete cases, even if there is 
a match against national data, the Central Unit will simply reply “no hit” because the Member State did 
not ask for the comparison of the data submitted against its own data. 
Which  respresents  a  rise  of  230%  compared  to  the  2006  statistics  (486).  Asylum  seekers  who  first 
applied in Poland seem to move on a large scale also to Belgium.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Spain  and  Slovakia.  Most  of  these  hits  are  'local'  (which  means  that  persons 
irregularly  entering  their  territory  subsequently  apply  for  asylum  in  the  same 
country19). Taking all Member States into consideration, more than half (63,2%) of 
the  persons  apprehended  in  connection  with  an  irregular  border-crossing  and  who 
decide  to  lodge  an  asylum  claim,  do  so  in  the  same  Member  State  they  entered 
irregularly.  

The  majority  of  those  who  entered  the  EU  illegally  via  Greece  and  then  travel 
further,  head  mainly  to  Italy,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom.  Those  entering  via 
Italy proceed mainly to the United Kingdom and Sweden and those who entered via 
Spain most often leave for Italy and Austria. Those who entered via Slovakia travel 
on mainly to Austria and France.  

3.2.4.  “Category 3 against category 1” hits 

These  hits  give  indications  as  to  where  illegal  migrants  first  applied  for  asylum 
before travelling to another Member State. It has to be borne in mind, however, that 
the  category  3  transaction  is  not  mandatory and  that not all  Member States use the 
possibility for this check systematically. However, on the basis of the data available, 
one  can  note  that,  for  example,  persons  apprehended  when  illegally  residing  in 
Germany  often  had  previously  claimed  asylum  in  Austria  or  in  Sweden,  and  that 
those  apprehended  when  illegally  residing  in  France  often  had  previously  claimed 
asylum in the United Kingdom or in Italy. It is worth noting that on average around 
18% of the persons found illegally on the territory had previously applied for asylum 
in a Member State.  

3.3. 

Transaction delay 

The  EURODAC  Regulation  currently  only  provides  a  very  vague  deadline  for  the 
transmission of fingerprints, which can cause significant delays in practice. This is a 
crucial  issue  since  a  delay  in  transmission  may  lead  to  results  contrary  to  the 
responsibility  principles  laid  down  in  the  Dublin  Regulation.  The  issue  of 
exaggerated delays between taking fingerprints and sending them to the EURODAC 
Central  Unit  was  pointed  out  in  the  previous  annual  reports  and  highlighted  as  a 
problem of implementation in the Evaluation Report.  

Although  this  phenomenon  is  no  longer  generalised,  some  Member  States  (Spain, 
Bulgaria,  Greece  and  Denmark)  still  produce  important  delays  by  sending 
fingerprints up to almost 12 days20 later than they had been taken. The Commission 
services  must  reiterate  that  a  delayed  transmission  can  result  in  the  incorrect 
designation  of  a  Member  State  by  way  of  two  different  scenarios  outlined  in  the 
previous annual report 2006: "wrong hits"21 and "missed hits"22.  

19 

20 

21 

An  asylum  application  overrules  an  irregular  entry,  therefore,  not  necessary  to  send  a  'category  2 
transaction' in cases where a person apprehended at the border at the same time also applies for asylum. 
Yearly  average  of  transmission  delay  of  one  category  of  data  of  the  Member  State  with  the  worst 
record. 
In the scenario of the so-called "wrong hit", a third-country national lodges an asylum application in a 
Member State (A), whose authorities take his/her fingerprints. While those fingerprints are still waiting 
to  be  transmitted  to  the  Central  Unit  (category  1  transaction),  the  same  person  could  already  present 
him/herself in another Member State (B) and ask again for asylum. If this Member State B sends the 
fingerprints  first,  the  fingerprints  sent  by  the  Member  State  A  would  be  registered  in  the  Central 
database later then the fingerprints sent by Member State B and would thus result in a hit from the data 
sent by Member State B against the data sent by the Member State A. Member State B would thus be 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In 2007, the Central Unit detected 60 "missed hits", of which 57 "in favour" of the 
same  Member  State,  and  233  "wrong  hits",  183  of  which  were  on  the  basis  of  the 
delays by the same Member State. Compared to the previous year, this represents a 
28% rise in "missed hits", while the number of "wrong hits" tripled. Therefore, the 
Commission services again urge the Member States to make all necessary efforts to 
send their data in accordance with Articles 4 and 8 of the EURODAC Regulation.  

In  its  proposal  for  the  amendment  of  the  EURODAC  Regulation,  the  Commission 
has proposed a deadline of 48 hours for transmitting data to the EURODAC Central 
Unit.  

3.4. 

Quality of transactions 

The  average  rate  in  2007  of  rejected  transactions  for  all  Member  States  is  6,13%, 
which is almost the same as in 2006 (6,03%). Some experienced a much higher (18% 
in  Finland)  rejection  rate  than  others  (3,59%  in  Norway).  Fourteen  Member  States 
have a rejection rate above the average, including three Member States with figures 
more  than  twice  as  high  as  the  average  (Finland,  Latvia,  Netherlands).  It  has  to  be 
highlighted  that  the  rejection  rate  does  not  depend  on  technology  or  system 
weaknesses.  The  causes  of  this  rejection  rate  are  mainly  the  low  quality  of  the 
fingerprints  images  submitted  by  Member  States,  human  error  or  the  wrong 
configuration of the sending Member State’s equipment. On the other hand, it has to 
be noted that in some cases these figures include several attempts to send the same 
fingerprints after they were rejected by the system for quality reasons. However, the 
Commission services reiterate the problem of generally  high rejection rates already 
underlined  by  previous  annual  reports  urging  those  Member  States  to  provide 
specific  training  of  national  EURODAC  operators,  as  well  to  correctly  configure 
their equipment in order to reduce this rejection rate. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In 2007, the EURODAC Central Unit continued to provide very satisfactory results 
in terms of speed, output, security and cost-effectiveness.  

As a logical consequence of the overall increase (following 5 years of a downward 
trend)  in  asylum  applications  in  the  EU  in  2007,  the  amount  of  'category  1 
transactions'  introduced  in  EURODAC  has  also  increased.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
number of 'category 2 transactions' dropped slightly, while no significant change was 
observed  in  the  number  of  'category  3  transactions'. It is also worth noting that the 
number of multiple applications decreased by 1% compared to the previous year. 

22 

determined as being responsible instead of the Member State A where an asylum application had been 
lodged first.  
In the scenario of the so-called "missed hit", a third-country national is apprehended in connection with 
an  irregular  border  crossing  and his/her  fingerprints  are  taken by  the  authorities  of  the Member  State 
(A)  he/she  entered.  While  those  fingerprints  are  still  waiting  to  be  transmitted  to  the  Central  Unit 
(category  2  transaction),  the  same  person  could  already  present  him/herself  in  another  Member  State 
(B) and lodge an asylum application. At that occasion, his/her fingerprints are taken by the authorities 
of Member State (B). If this Member State (B) sends the fingerprints (category 1 transaction) first, the 
Central  Unit  would  register  a  category  1  transaction  first,  and  Member  State  (B)  would  handle  the 
application instead of Member State A. Indeed, when a category 2 transaction arrives later on, a hit will 
be missed because category 2 data are not searchable. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Concerns  remain  about  the  excessive  delay  in  the  transmission  of  data  to  the 
EURODAC  Central  Unit,  as  well  as  about  the  low  quality  of  data  and  the  high 
number of 'special searches" used by some Member States.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Annex: Statistics 

Table 1: EURODAC Central Unit, Database content status the 31/12/2007 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
Table 2: Successful transactions to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 200723 

category 1 

category 2 

category 3  TOTAL 

8.467 

10.243 

847 

4.090 

1.807 

19.130 

1.449 

13 

4.622 

1.127 

24.100 

143 

8 

343 

0 

0 

1.938 

10.548 

686 

426 

151 

2.466 

10.937 

1.616 

4.241 

4.273 

17 

15.948 

35.095 

0 

0 

532 

10 

1,981 

23 

9.044 

2.418 

16.084 

1 

9 

194 

1.322 

9.067 

33.176 

23.343 

11.376 

3.087 

36 

3.284 

894 

0 

1 

16 

60 

1 

0 

34.735 

4.041 

37 

3.285 

15.003 

15.053 

1.088 

31.144 

67 

331 

33 

904 

7.159 

5.218 

5.608 

184 

588 

29.636 

347 

2.311 

24.250 

7 

0 

0 

384 

4 

1 

8 

0 

207 

2 

6 

185 

480 

49 

313 

13 

0 

123 

644 

46 

1.288 

12.156 

19.319 

6.066 

11.285 

320 

36 

328 

239 

622 

1.186 

5.936 

220 

1.123 

29.877 

975 

3682 

8.232 

32.962 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IC 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

TOTAL 

24

197.284

38.17325 

64.56126 

300.01827 

23 

24 
25 
26 
27 

A  “successful  transaction”  is  a  transaction  which  has  been  correctly  processed  by  the  Central  Unit, 
without rejection due to a data validation issue, fingerprint errors or insufficient quality. 
16.5958 in 2006. 
41.312 in 2006. 
63.341 in 2006. 
270611 in 2006.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
Table 3: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 1, in 2007 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 4: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 2, in 2007 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 5: Hit repartition – Category 3 against Category 1, in 2007 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
Table 6: Rejected transactions, percentage in 2007 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Table 7: Average time between the date of taking the fingerprints and their sending to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2007 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 8: Category 1 against Category 1 hit in wrong sense, in 2007 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
Table 9: Distribution of CAT1/CAT2 hits missed because a delay when sending the CAT2, in 2007 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 10: Distribution of hits against blocked cases (art. 12 of the EC Regulation 2725/2000), in 2007 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
Table 11: Count of category 928 per Member State, in 2007 

28 

Category 9 stands for special searches according the Article 18 of Council Regulation 2725/2000/EC. 

EN 

20 

EN