REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  Annual report to the European Parliament and the Council on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit in 2009
Date: 2010-08-02
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 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

Brussels, 2.8.2010 
COM(2010)415 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Annual report to the European Parliament and the Council on the activities of the 
EURODAC Central Unit in 2009 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE COUNCIL 

Annual report to the European Parliament and the Council on the activities of 
the EURODAC Central Unit in 2009 

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 the 
“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 seventh annual report includes information on 
the management and the performance of the system in 2009. 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 

On 10 September 2009, the Commission adopted the Amended 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].3 

The  purpose  of  this  proposal  was  to  take  into  account  the  resolution  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  results  of  negotiations  in  the  Council 
concerning the proposal for amending the EURODAC Regulation which was 
adopted  on  3  December  2008.4  At  the  same  time,  it  also  introduced  the 
possibility  for  Member  States'  law  enforcement  authorities  and  Europol  to 
access  the  EURODAC  central  database  for  the  purposes  of  prevention, 
detection  and  investigation  of  terrorist  offences  and  other  serious  criminal 
offences.5 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 

OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p.1. 
Article 24(1) EURODAC Regulation.  
COM(2009) 342 final. 
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. 
A  proposal  for  a  Council  Decision  on  requesting  comparisons  with  EURODAC  data  by 
Member  States'  law  enforcement  authorities  and  Europol  for  law  enforcement  purposes  was 
adopted at the same time (COM(2009) 344 final, 10.9.2009), which, with the abolition of the 

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,  an  upgrading  of  the  EURODAC  system  is 
being carried out.  

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,7 who are the final end-users of the EURODAC Central 
Unit.8 During 2009 the EURODAC Central Unit was available 99.42% of the 
time.  

The expenditure for maintaining and operating the Central Unit in 2009 was 
1.221.183,83  euros.  The  increase  in  the  expenditure  compared  to  previous 
years  (820.791,05  in  2007,  605.720,67  in  2008)  is  explained  by  the  first 
instalment for the ongoing upgrade of the EURODAC system combined with 
increased system maintenance costs.  

At  the  same  time,  some  savings  were  made  by  the  efficient  use  of  existing 
resources and infrastructures managed by the Commission, such as the use of 
the S-TESTA network. 

the  IDABC  Programme9) 

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

6 

7 

8 

9 

pillar structure by the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 
has lapsed. 
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  matches  which  can 
occur, 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,  Iceland  and  Switzerland,  apply  the  Dublin  and 
EURODAC Regulations, therefore the notion "Member States" is used in this Report to cover 
the 30 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. 
IDABC  stands  for  Interoperable  Delivery  of  European  eGovernment  Services  to  public 
Administrations, Business and Citizens. IDABC is a Community programme managed by the 
European Commission's Directorate-General for Informatics. 

EN 

3 

   EN

                                                                                                                                            
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. 

As pointed out in previous annual reports, during the first years of operation 
of EURODAC, high volumes of "special searches" triggered concerns about 
possible misuse of this functionality by national administrations. 

Following a steep decrease in the relevant figures in 2008 (from 195 in 2007 
to  56),  a  further  drop  is  observed  in  2009:  only  42  such  searches  were 
conducted,10 which volume no longer, in itself, raise concerns.  

However,  in  order  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. 

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  01.01.2009  –  31.12.2009. 
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 to be illegally present on the 
territory  of  a  Member  State  (where  the  competent  authorities  consider  it 
necessary to check whether there has been a 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 
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 

10 

31% of these were run by the same Member State, France. 

EN 

4 

   EN

                                                 
In 2009, the Central Unit received a total of 353.561 successful transactions, 
which represents only a slight decrease of 1% compared to 2007 (357.421). 
Regarding the number of transactions of data of asylum seekers ("category 
1"12), the increasing trend of the previous two years continued in 2009: the 
EURODAC  statistics  reveal  a  8%  rise  (to  236.936)  compared  to  2008 
(219.557).  

The  trend  regarding  the  number  of  persons  who  were  apprehended  in 
connection with an irregular crossing of an external border ("category 2"13) 
changed dramatically in 2009. After a rise of 62,3% between 2007 and 2008 
(to 61.945), the number of transactions fell by 50% in 2009 (to 31.071). Italy, 
Greece  and  Spain  continues  to  be  the  countries  which  introduce  the  vast 
majority  of  such  data.  However,  Greece  is  now  the  one  with  most 
transactions  –  it  sent  60%  of  all  "category  2"  in  2009  (18.714  compared  to 
20.012 in 2008). On the other hand, important drops in the numbers for Italy 
and  Spain  are  observed:  7.300  compared  to  32.052  for  Italy  and  1.994 
compared to 7.068 for Spain.  

In 2009, 6 Member States (the Czech Republic, Iceland, Latvia, 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  will  be  clarified  in  the  framework  of  the  on-going  revision  of  the 
EURODAC Regulation.  

The  increasing  trend  of  previous  years  regarding  the  option  of  sending15 
“category  3”16  transactions  (data  of  persons  apprehended  when  illegally 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Table 2 of the Annex details the successful transactions per Member State, with a breakdown 
by category, between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009. 
Fingerprints  (full  10  print  images)  of  asylum  applicants  are  stored  to  be  compared  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). "Category 1" 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." 
And thereby compare the data of third country nationals apprehended when illegally staying 
on the territory with the previously recorded fingerprints of asylum seekers.  

EN 

5 

   EN

                                                                                                                                            
residing on the territory of a Member State) continued in 2009. Following the 
increase  of  17,6%  in  2008  (to  75.919),  the  number  of  transactions  rose  by 
12,7% in 2009 (to 85.554). Ireland is the only Member State which did not 
send any "category 3" transactions.  

Even though "category 3" searches are not obligatory under the EURODAC 
Regulation,  the  Commission  encourages  Member  States  to  use  this 
possibility  before  initiating  return  procedures  under  Directive  2008/115/EC 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2008  on 
common  standards  and  procedures  in  Member  States  for  returning  illegally 
staying  third-country  nationals.  In  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  EURODAC 
Regulation,17  such  a  search  could  help  establish  whether  the  third  country 
national  has  applied  for  asylum  in  another  Member  State  to  which  he/she 
should be returned in application of the Dublin Regulation. 

3.2. 

“Hits”  

3.2.1.  Multiple asylum applications (“Category 1 against category 1” hits) 

Of a total of 236.936 asylum applications recorded in EURODAC in 2009, 
23,3%  were  'multiple  asylum  applications'  (i.e.  second  or  more),  which 
means that, in 55.226 cases, the fingerprints of the same person had already 
been recorded as a "category 1" transaction in the same or another Member 
State, representing a rise of 5,8% compared to the previous year. This does 
not however mean that in each and every case 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.  

Table  3  of  the  Annex  shows  for  each  Member  State  the  number  of 
to  asylum  applications  previously 
applications  which  corresponded 

16 

17 

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. 
Article  11  "(…)  As  a  general  rule  there  are  grounds  for  checking  whether  the  alien  has 
previously  lodged  an  application  for  asylum  in  another  Member  State  where:  (a)  the  alien 
declares that he/she has lodged an application for asylum but without indicating the Member 
State in which he/she made the application; (b) the alien does not request asylum but objects 
to being returned to his/her country of origin by claiming that he/she would be in danger, or 
(c)  the  alien  otherwise  seeks  to  prevent  his/her  removal  by  refusing  to  cooperate  in 
establishing his/her identity, in particular by showing no, or false, identity papers." 

EN 

6 

   EN

                                                                                                                                            
registered  in  either  another  ("foreign  hits")  or  in  the  same  Member  State 
("local hits").18  

It  is  striking  that  38,8%  of  all  multiple  applications  were  "local  hits".  In 
Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  and  Poland,  this  figure  even  exceeds 
50%.  Indicating  cases  where  a  person  who  has  applied  for  asylum  in  a 
Member State makes a new application in the same Member State, local hits 
in  fact  reflect  the  notion  of  subsequent  application  under  Article  32  of 
Council  Directive  2005/85/EC  of  1  December  2005  on  minimum  standards 
on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.  

Foreign  hits  give  an  indication  of  the  secondary  movements  of  asylum 
seekers  in  the  EU.  Apart  from  the  'logical'  routes  between  neighbouring 
Member States, a high number (2.012) of asylum applicants in France and in 
Belgium (959) previously lodged their application in Poland, and the highest 
amount of foreign hits in Greece (300) and in Italy (208) were found against 
data of asylum applicants previously recorded in the United Kingdom. In the 
latter case, the flows are symmetric since a significant number of the hits on 
"category  1"  transactions  introduced  by  the  United  Kingdom  occur  on  data 
submitted by Italy (726).  

3.2.2.  “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, Hungary and Spain. Taking all Member States 
into consideration, in 65,2% of the cases, persons apprehended in connection 
with an irregular border-crossing who later decide to lodge an asylum claim, 
do so in a Member State different from the one they entered irregularly. This 
results  in  20.363  applications,  which  corresponds  to  a  rise  from  last  year, 
when  35,6%  constituted  such  a  "foreign  hit",  ie.  10.571  applications  were 
submitted  in  a  MS  different  from  the  one  where  the  person  entered 
irregularly. 

The  majority  of  those  who  entered  the  EU  illegally  via  Greece  and  then 
traveled further (12.192), headed mainly to Norway (2223), United Kingdom 
(1805) or Germany (1516). Those having entered via Italy and having moved 
on (6.398) proceeded mainly to Switzerland (1422), the Netherlands (1075), 
Norway  (1041),  or  Sweden  (911).  Those  who  entered  via  Spain  and 
eventually  traveled  further  (544)  most  often  left  for  France  (254)  or 

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. 

EN 

7 

   EN

                                                 
Switzerland  (118),  while  those  who  entered  via  Hungary  traveled  on  (604) 
mainly to Austria (150), Switzerland (80) or Germany (65).  

3.2.3.  “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  in  the  previous  years,  persons 
apprehended when illegally residing in Germany most 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.  After  lodging  an  asylum  claim  in  Italy,  a 
significant number of persons stay illegally in Norway, Germany, France and 
the Netherlands. Similar flows seem to occur from Greece, Spain and Malta 
towards  Norway,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands.  It  is  worth  noting  that  on 
average  around  25%  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 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 significant 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.  

Continuing  the  increasing  trend  of  the  previous  year,  2009  saw  a  further 
overall increase in the delay of transmission, ie. the time elapsed between the 
taking  and  sending  of  fingerprints  to  the  Central  Unit  of  EURODAC.  The 
longest  delay  is  36,35  days  for  the  transmission  of  "category  2"  data  by 
Greece.19 Other Member States with very large delays are Romania, Iceland, 
the United Kingdom, Spain, Slovakia and Denmark. 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  previous 
annual reports: "wrong hits"20 and "missed hits"21.  

19 

20 

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 

EN 

8 

   EN

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

In  2009,  the  Central  Unit  detected  1060  "missed  hits",  which  is  a  2,3 
multiplication  of  the  figure  of  2008  (450).  The  statistics  for  2007  showed 
only 60 "missed hits". It is striking that 99% of those in 2009 are attributable 
to the delays in transmission by Greece. 290 hits were "wrong hits" (324 in 
2008). 82,8% of these are due to the delays in transmission by Denmark. On 
the  basis  of  the  above  results,  the  Commission  again  urges  the  Member 
States to make all necessary efforts to send their data promptly in accordance 
with Articles 4 and 8 of the EURODAC Regulation.  

3.4. 

Quality of transactions 

The average rate in 2009 of rejected transactions for all Member States was 
7,87%, which is a slight increase from the previous years (2008: 6,4%; 2007: 
6,13%).  9  Member  States  had  rejection  rates  of  over  10%:  the  Netherlands 
(19,28%), Malta, Estonia, Luxembourg, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, 
France  and  Germany.  11  Member  States  had  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  fingerprint  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. 

21 

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 

9 

   EN

                                                                                                                                            
4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In 2009, the EURODAC Central Unit continued to provide very satisfactory 
results in terms of speed, output, security and cost-effectiveness.  

The  amount  of  'category  1  transactions'  introduced  in  EURODAC  has  also 
increased.  The  number  of  'category  2  transactions'  dropped  by  50%,  while 
the number of 'category 3 transactions' increased by 12,7%.  

Concerns  remain  about  persisting  excessive  delays  in  the  transmission  of 
data to the EURODAC Central Unit. 

EN 

10 

   EN

Table 1: EURODAC Central Unit, Database content status the 31/12/2009 

EN 

11 

   EN

 
Table 2: Successful transactions to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2009 

EN 

12 

   EN

 
Table 3: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 1, in 2009 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 4: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 2, in 2009 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 5: Hit repartition – Category 3 against Category 1, in 2009 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
Table 6: Rejected transactions, percentage in 2009 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 7: Average time between the date of taking the fingerprints and their sending to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2009 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 8: Category 1 against Category 1 hit in wrong sense, in 2009 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
  
EN 

22 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 9: Distribution of CAT1/CAT2 hits missed because a delay when sending the CAT2, in 2009 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Table 10: Distribution of hits against blocked cases (art. 12 of the EC Regulation 2725/2000), in 2009 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
  
EN 

25 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 11: Count of category 9 per Member State, in 2009 

EN 

26 

EN