Report 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 2008
Date: 2009-09-25
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, 25.9.2009 
COM(2009) 494 final 

REPORT 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 2008 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT 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 2008 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Scope  

Council  Regulation  EC/2725/2000  of  11  December  2000,  concerning  the 
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 sixth annual report includes information on the 
management  and  the  performance  of  the  system  in  2008.  It  assesses  the 
output and the cost-effectiveness of EURODAC, as well as the quality of its 
Central Unit’s service.  

1.2. 

Legal and policy developments 

In  order  to  address  the  issues  (related  to  the  efficiency  of  the  EURODAC 
Regulation  and  the  improvement  of  the  system's  support  to  facilitate  the 
application of the Dublin Regulation) flagged in its report on the evaluation 
of  the  Dublin  system  published  in  June  2007  (the  Evaluation  Report),3  the 
the  EURODAC 
Commission  put  forward  a  proposal  for  amending 
Regulation on 3 December 2008.4  

In 2008, the geographical scope of the EURODAC Regulation was expanded 
to  cover  Switzerland,  which  (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 12 December 2008.5  

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 

OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p.1. 
Article 24(1) EURODAC Regulation.  
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) 825. 
The Commission provided assistance to Switzerland to link up with the EURODAC system, 
including prior operational testing. 

EN 

2 

   EN

 
                                                 
2. 

THE EURODAC CENTRAL UNIT

6 

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,7 
an upgrading of the EURODAC system is being carried out and is planned to 
be finalised in the first quarter of 2010. 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,  and  during  2008  the  remainder  of  Member  States 
were migrated. 

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.8 During 2008 the EURODAC Central Unit was available 99.84% of the 
time.  

Two  "false  hits",  i.e.  wrong  identification  performed  by  the  AFIS,  were 
reported  to  the  Commission  in  2008,  following  the  one  notified  in  2007. 
Although  Member  States  are  required  to  verify  all  hits  immediately,  as 
described  in  Article  4(6)  of  the  EURODAC  Regulation,  they  are  currently 
not obliged to notify the Commission of false hits.9 However, with a total of 
three false hits reported out of more than 1.5 million searches and more than 
300.000 hits the system can still be considered extremely accurate. 

The expenditure for maintaining and operating the Central Unit in 2008 was 
605.720,67 euros. This expenditure decreased compared to the previous year 
since  the  figure  for  2007  included  costs  of  an  essential  upgrade  of  the 
capacity  of  the  Business  Continuity  System10.  However,  the  costs  for  2008 
still  represent  an  increase  compared  to  the  years  before  (2004-2005-2006) 
due to increased system maintenance costs.  

6 

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 Report 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.  
The Business Continuity System is used in case of unavailability of the Central Unit, and it 
also  has  testing  capabilities  to  allow  Member  States  or  acceding  countries  to  test  new 
solutions. 

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 S-TESTA network. 

the 
The  Commission  also  provided  (via 
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 Commission making use of common 
available infrastructures, thereby generating savings for national budgets. 

the  IDABC  Programme) 

2.3. 

Data protection and data security 

Article 18 paragraph 2 of the EURODAC Regulation establishes a category 
of  transactions  which  provides  for  the  possibility  to  conduct  so  called 
"special searches" on the request of the person whose data are stored in the 
central  database  in  order  to  safeguard  his/her  rights  as  the  data  subject  to 
access his/her own data. 

In  2008,  a  steep  decrease  of  such  "special  searches"  took  place:  56  such 
searches  were  conducted  in  2008,  compared  to  195  in  2007,  constituting  a 
drop of 71, 3%.  

As  a  welcome  development,  the  number  of  Member  States  using  special 
searches almost halved (8, compared to 15 of the previous year). 

However, as discussed in previous annual reports as well as in the Evaluation 
Report, the Commission is still concerned about the use of such searches and 
considers its  number still too high. 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.  

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  01.01.2008  –  31.12.2008. 
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  methodological  reasons  for  the  differences.  First,  the 
Eurostat data include all asylum applicants, ie. of whatever age. Second, their 
data  is  collected  with  a  distinction  between  persons  applying  for  asylum 

EN 

4 

   EN

 
during  the  reference  month  (which  may  also  include  repeated  applications) 
and persons applying for asylum for the first time.  

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.11 

In 2008, the Central Unit received a total of 357.421 successful transactions, 
which  is  an  overall  increase  of  19,1%  compared  to  2007  (300.018). 
Regarding the number of transactions of data of asylum seekers ("category 
1"12),  the  increasing  trend  of  2007  continued  in  2008:  the  EURODAC 
statistics reveal a 11,3% rise (to 219.557) compared to 2007 (197.284). Such 
an increase reflects the general rise in the number of asylum applications in 
the EU in 2008.  

The  trend  regarding  the  number  of  persons  who  were  apprehended  in 
connection with an irregular crossing of an external border ("category 2"13) 
also  changed  in  2008.  After  a  drop  of  8%  between  2006  and  2007  (to 
38.173), the number of transactions rose by 62,3% in 2008 (to 61.945). Italy 
(32.052 compared to 15.053 in 2007), Greece (20.012 compared to 11.376 in 
2007)  and  Spain  (7.068,  compared  to  9.044  in  2007)  introduce  the  vast 
majority  of  the  category  2  fingerprints,  followed  by  Hungary  (1.220),  the 
United  Kingdom  (344)  and  Bulgaria  (307).  In  2008,  7  Member  States  (the 
Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Iceland,  Luxemburg,  Norway  and 
Portugal) did not send any "category 2” transactions. The issue of divergence 
between the number of category 2 data sent to EURODAC and other sources 
of  statistics  on  the  volume  of  irregular  border  crossings  in  the  Member 
States,  highlighted  by  the  EURODAC  statistics,  is  most  likely  due  to  the 
vague  definition  in  Article  8(1)  of  the  EURODAC  Regulation.14  This  issue 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Table 2 of the Annex details the successful transactions per Member State, with a breakdown 
by category, between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008. 
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. 
"Each  Member  State  shall,  in  accordance  with  the  safeguards  laid  down  in  the  European 
Convention  on  Human  Rights  and  in  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the 
Child, promptly take the fingerprints of all fingers of every alien of at least 14 years of age 
who  is  apprehended  by  the  competent  control  authorities  in  connection  with  the  irregular 
crossing  by  land,  sea  or  air  of  the  border  of  that  Member  State  having  come  from  a  third 
country and who is not turned back." 

EN 

5 

   EN

 
                                                 
will be clarified in the framework of the on-going revision of the EURODAC 
Regulation.  
The  option  of  sending15  “category  3”16  transactions  (data  of  persons 
apprehended  when  illegally  residing  on  the  territory  of  a  Member  State) 
experienced a significant rise in 2008. After the slight increase between 2006 
and  2007  (to  64.561)  the  number  of  transactions  rose  to  75.919  in  2008, 
meaning  an  increase  of  17,6%.  Ireland  and  Malta  remain  those  Member 
States which did not send any "category 3" transactions.  

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 (1.739) of asylum applicants 
in  France  and  in  Belgium  (625)  previously  lodged  their  application  in 
Poland, or that the highest amount of foreign hits in Greece (316) and in Italy 
(680)  were  found  against  data  of  asylum  applicants  previously  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 (768). It is striking that 42,2% of the overall 
subsequent  applications  were  lodged  in  the  same  Member  State  as  the 
previous  one.  In  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Poland  and  United 
Kingdom  well  over  half  of  the  subsequent  applications  were  lodged  in  the 
same Member State.  

3.2.2.  Multiple asylum applications 

From  a  total  of  219.557  asylum  applications  recorded  in  EURODAC  in 
2008, 38.445 applications were 'multiple asylum applications', which means 
that  in  38.445  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 17,5% of the asylum applications in 2008 were subsequent (i.e. 

15 

16 

17 

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. 
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. 

EN 

6 

   EN

 
                                                 
second or more) asylum applications, representing a rise of 1,5% 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, Spain and Hungary. Most of these hits are 'local' 
(which  means  that  persons  irregularly  entering  their  territory  subsequently 
apply  for  asylum  in  the  same  country18).  Taking  all  Member  States  into 
consideration,  more  than  half  (64,4%)  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  United  Kingdom,  Norway,  Italy  and  the 
Netherlands. Those entering via Italy proceed mainly to the United Kingdom 
Norway, Switzerland19 and Sweden. Those who entered via Spain most often 
leave  for  France  and  Italy,  while  those  who  entered  via  Hungary  travel  on 
mainly to Austria.  

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  submitting  category  3  transactions  is  not  mandatory  and  that 
not all Member States use the possibility for this check systematically.  

The  data  available  suggest  that,  as  during  the  previous  year,  persons 
apprehended  when  illegally  residing  in  Germany  often  had  previously 
claimed  asylum  in  Sweden  or  in  Austria,  and  that  those  apprehended  when 
illegally  residing  in  France  often  had  previously  claimed  asylum  in  the 
United  Kingdom  or  in  Italy.  As  a  recent  development,  asylum  seekers  who 
first applied in Italy are found staying illegally in larger numbers in Norway. 
It  is  worth  noting  that  on  average  around  19.6%  of  the  persons  found 

18 

19 

An  asylum  application  overrules  an  irregular  entry,  therefore,  it  is  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. 
Statistics  concerning  Switzerland have  to  be  balanced  against  the  fact  that  this  country  only 
connected to EURODAC on 12 December 2008, therefore their statistics represent less than 3 
weeks of activity in the system.  

EN 

7 

   EN

 
                                                 
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.  

After a better performance of the previous year, 2008 saw an overall increase 
in  the delay  of transmission, with the  worst record being 22,09 days.20 The 
Commission  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.  

The  deterioration  of  the  performance  in  the  transmission  of  fingerprints 
clearly shows its results in the amount of missed and wrong hits.  

In  2008,  the  Central  Unit  detected  450  "missed  hits",  which  is  a  7,5 
multiplication of the figure of 2007 (60). 324 hits were "wrong hits" (233 in 
2007).  On  the  basis  of  the  above  results,  the  Commission  again  urges  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.  

20 

21 

22 

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  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

 
                                                 
3.4. 

Quality of transactions 

The  average  rate  in  2008  of  rejected  transactions  for  all  Member  States  is 
6,4%, which is almost the same as in the previous years (2006: 6,03%, 2007: 
6,13%). 6 Member States have rejection rate over 10%: Estonia (26, 67%), 
Malta,  Finland,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  United  Kingdom.  13  Member 
States  have  a  rejection  rate  above  the  average.  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. 
While  acknowledging  that  some  delay  can  be  caused  by  the  temporary 
impossibility  of  taking  fingerprints  (damaged  fingertips  or  other  health 
conditions  hindering  the  prompt  taking  of  fingerprints),  the  Commission 
reiterates 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  as  to  correctly  configure 
their equipment in order to reduce this rejection rate. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In 2008, 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 in asylum applications in the 
'category  1  transactions'  introduced  in 
EU  in  2008,  the  amount  of 
EURODAC has also increased. The number of 'category 2 transactions' rose 
by 62,3%, while the number of 'category 3 transactions' increased by 17,6%.  

Concerns remain about the recently risen excessive delay in the transmission 
of data to the EURODAC Central Unit. 

EN 

9 

   EN

 
Table 1: EURODAC Central Unit, Database content status on 31/12/2008 

EN 

10 

   EN

 
 
Table 2: Successful transactions to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2008 

EN 

11 

   EN

 
 
Table 3: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 1, in 2008 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 4: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 2, in 2008 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Table 5: Hit repartition – Category 3 against Category 1, in 2008 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 6: Rejected transactions, percentage in 2008 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 7: Average time between the date of taking the fingerprints and their sending to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2008 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 8: Category 1 against Category 1 hit in wrong sense, in 2008 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 9: Distribution of CAT1/CAT2 hits missed because a delay when sending the CAT2, in 2008 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 10: Distribution of hits against blocked cases (art. 12 of the EC Regulation 2725/2000), in 2008 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 11: Count of category 9 per Member State, in 2008 

EN 

20 

EN