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 2010
Date: 2011-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: activity report, admission of aliens, biometrics, database management system, disclosure of information, identity document, information system, right of asylum

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.9.2011 
COM(2011) 549 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 2010 

 
 
 
 
  
 
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 2010 

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  Unit2. The  present  eighth annual  report includes information on the 
management  and  the  performance  of  the  system  in  2010.  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 11 October 2010, 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  Amended  proposal  of  October  2010  replaced  the  proposal  adopted  by 
the Commission in September 2009, which, together with the accompanying 
proposal  for  a  Council  Decision  regarding  access  for  law  enforcement 
authorities4, lapsed with the entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  and  the  abolition  of  the  pillar  system.  In 
accordance  with  the  Communication  on  the  consequences  of  the  entry  into 
force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing inter-institutional decision-making 
procedures5, such a proposal was to be formally withdrawn and replaced with 
a new proposal to take account of the new framework of the TFEU.  

However,  with  a  view  to  progressing  on  the  negotiations  on  the  asylum 
package and facilitating the conclusion of an agreement on the EURODAC 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p.1. 
Article 24(1) EURODAC Regulation.  
COM(2010) 555 final.  
COM(2009) 344 final.  
COM(2009) 665 final/2. 

EN 

2 

   EN

 
                                                 
Regulation,  the  Commission  considered  it  more  appropriate  not  to  replace 
the  lapsed  September  2009  proposal  for  a  Council  Decision.  For  these 
reasons,  the  Commission  also  withdrew,  from  the  EURODAC  proposal, 
those provisions dealing with access for law enforcement purposes.  

Furthermore, the Commission considered that a swifter adoption of the new 
EURODAC Regulation would facilitate the timely set up of the Agency for 
the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, 
security and justice, since that Agency is intended to be responsible for the 
management of EURODAC6. 

The Amended proposal of October 2010 is currently being discussed by the 
Council and the European Parliament.  

2. 

THE EURODAC CENTRAL UNIT7  

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 has 
been  carried  out  by  the  Commission.  The  IT  project,  called  EURODAC 
PLUS, was aimed at a) replacing the obsolete IT infrastructure, b) increasing 
the  overall  system  capacity  and  performance,  c)  ensuring  a  faster,  more 
secure  and  more  reliable  data  synchronisation  between  the  Production 
System  and  the  Business  Continuity  System.  In  2010,  the  Provisional 
Acceptance  Tests  (PAT)  and  the  Operational  Acceptance  Test  (OAT)  were 
successfully completed. 

The  Provisional  Acceptance  Test  took  place  between  March  and  August 
2010 and was aimed at testing the full compliance of the new system with the 
established  system  requirements.  The  Operational  Acceptance  Test  (OAT) 
was  aimed  at  testing  the  full  compliance  of  EURODAC  PLUS  with  the 
Member States' existing IT systems and included the active involvement of 6 
Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Slovenia  and  United 
Kingdom).  It  started  on  9  August  2010  and  was  completed  successfully  on 
13 September 2010. 

The  last  phase  of  the  project  –  the  Final  Acceptance  Test  –  involved  the 
parallel operations of the old and the new system for 3 consecutive months 

6 
7 

COM(2010) 96 final  
The  EURODAC  Regulation  provides  for  the  implementation  of  a  Central  Unit  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  (National 
Access  Points)  in  each  Member  State.  The  EURODAC  Regulation  and  its  Implementing 
Rules  identify  the  responsibilities  for  the  collection,  transmission  and  comparison  of  the 
fingerprint data, the means through which the transmission can take place, the statistical tasks 
of the Central Unit and the standards that are used for the data transmission.  

EN 

3 

   EN

 
                                                 
and the comparison of the results on a daily basis. The Final Acceptance Test 
started in November and was completed in February 2011. 

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.  Member  States  were  fully  informed  about  any  service  unavailability, 
which  was  on  each  occasion  exclusively  due  to  activities  related  to  the 
upgrade  of  EURODAC  (EURODAC  PLUS).  Overall, 
the 
EURODAC Central Unit was available 99.76% of the time. 

in  2010 

The expenditure for maintaining and operating the Central Unit in 2010 was 
€2,115,056.61.  The  increase  in  the  expenditure   compared  to  previous  years 
(€1,221,183.83 in 2009, €605,720.67 in 2008) is e
xplained by the upgrade of 
the  EURODAC  system  (EURODAC  PLUS).  The  fixed  price  for  the 
implementation  of  EURODAC  PLUS  is  €3,055,695.49:  20%  (€611,139.10) 
was paid in 2009, 60% (€1,833,417.29) was paid in 2010 and the remaining 
20% (€611,139.10) will be paid in 2011. 

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 
network8.  The  Commission  also  provided  (via  the  ISA  Programme9)  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 in the event covered by the Commission making use of the 
common available infrastructures.  

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. 

the  purpose  of 

8

9 

S-TESTA  (secured  Trans-European  Services  for  Telematics  between  Administrations) 
network  provides  a  generic  infrastructure  to  serve  the  business  needs  and  information 
exchange requirements between European and National administrations. 
ISA (Interoperability Solution for European Public Administrations) is the new programme to 
improve electronic cooperation among public administrations in EU Member States. It is the 
follow-on of the previous programme IDA II (Interchange of  Data  between  Administrations) 
and  IDABC  (Interoperable  Delivery  of  European  eGovernment  Services 
to  public 
Administrations, Businesses and Citizens). 

EN 

4 

   EN

 
                                                 
 
In 2010, a total of 66 such searches were conducted which represents a slight 
increase  in  comparison  with  2009  (42)  and  2008  (56).  This  figure 
nevertheless  indicates  that  the  volume  of  special  searches  seems  to  have 
stabilised at an acceptable level when compared with the most recent high in 
2007 (195).  

In order to better monitor this phenomenon, the Commission has included in 
its proposal for the 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  01.01.2010  –  31.12.2010. 
The  EURODAC  statistics  are  based  on  records  of  (1)  fingerprints  from  all 
individuals aged 14 years or over who have made applications for asylum in 
the  Member  States  ('category  1'),  (2)  fingerprints  of  persons  who  were 
apprehended  when  crossing  a  Member  State's  external  border  irregularly 
('category 2'), or (3) persons 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) ('category 3'). 

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,  i.e.  of  any  age.  Second,  their  data  is  collected  with  a 
distinction  made  between  persons  applying  for  asylum  during  the  reference 
month (which may also include repeat 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 quality10. 

In 2010, the Central Unit received a total of 299,459 successful transactions, 
which represents a decrease of 15.3% compared with 2009 (353,561).  

The  increasing  trend  of  the  previous  years  with  regard  to  the  number  of 
transactions  of  data  of  asylum  seekers  ('category  1')  was  broken  in  2010, 
which  saw  a  decrease  to  215,463  (9%)  requests  compared  with  2009 
(236,936) and 2008 (219,557).  

10 

Table 2 of the Annex details the successful transactions per Member State, with a breakdown 
by category, between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2010. 

EN 

5 

   EN

 
                                                 
The  trend  regarding  the  number  of  persons  who  were  apprehended  in 
connection  with  an  irregular  crossing  of  an  external  border  ('category  2') 
followed  the  same  pattern  as  in  2009.  After  reaching  61,945  in  2008,  the 
number of transactions fell to 31,071 in 2009, and in 2010 the number fell to 
11,156  transactions.  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain  continue  to  be  the  Member 
States that introduced by far the most such transactions. While remaining the 
one  with  the  most  transactions  in  2010,  Greece  introduced  significantly 
fewer transactions (4,486) than in 2009 (18,714). Likewise, Italy (from 7,300 
to  2,485)  and  Spain  (from  1,994  to  1,674)  saw  drops  in  the  number  of 
transactions  in  2010  compared  with  2009,  with  the  drop  in  the  figures  for 
Italy being particularly significant.  

In  2010,  the  same  6  Member  States  (the  Czech  Republic,  Iceland,  Latvia, 
Luxemburg, Norway and Portugal) as in the previous year did not send any 
'category  2'  transactions.  As  explained  in  the  2009  report,  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  due  to  the 
definition in Article 8(1) of the EURODAC Regulation11. This issue will be 
clarified  in  the  framework  of  the  on-going  revision  of  the  EURODAC 
Regulation.  

The total number of 'category 3' transactions (data of persons apprehended 
when  illegally  residing  on  the  territory  of  a  Member  State)  fell  in  2010  (to 
72,840)  compared  with  2009  (85,554).  Ireland  remains  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 nationals12. In the cases mentioned by the EURODAC 
Regulation13,  such  a  search  could  help  establish  whether  the  third  country 
national  has  applied  for  asylum  in  another  Member  State  where  he/she 
should be returned in application of the Dublin Regulation.  

11 

12 
13 

'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.' 
OJ L 348 of 24.12.2008.  
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

 
                                                 
3.2. 

'Hits' 

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

From  a  total  of  215,463  asylum  applications  recorded  in  EURODAC  in 
2010, 24.16% were recorded as 'multiple asylum applications' (i.e. second or 
more), which means that in 52,064 cases, the fingerprints of the same person 
had already been recorded as a 'category 1' transaction in the same or another 
Member State. In 2009, the same figure was 55,226 (23.3%). However, 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 
applications  which  corresponded 
to  asylum  applications  previously 
registered  in  either  another  ('foreign  hits')  or  in  the  same  Member  State 
('local hits')14.  

In  2010,  a  total  of  35%  of  all  multiple  applications  were  local  hits.  In  a 
number of Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Poland,  Slovakia,  UK)  this  figure  even  exceeds  50%.  The 
percentage of local hits in 2009 was 38.8%. 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 status15.  

Foreign  hits  give  an  indication  of  the  secondary  movements  of  asylum 
seekers  in  the  EU.  As  in  previous  years,  the  statistics  confirm  that  the 
secondary movements witnessed do not necessarily follow the 'logical' routes 
between  neighbouring  Member  States.  For  instance,  France  continued  to 
receive  the  highest  number  of  foreign  hits  from  asylum  seekers  who 
previously lodged an application in Poland (2,081). The same pattern can be 
observed  in  the  UK  where  the  highest  number  of  foreign  hits  occurred 

14 

15 

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. 
OJ L 326 of 13.12.2005.  

EN 

7 

   EN

 
                                                 
against data from Italy (484). The statistics on foreign hits are not a one-way 
street from the countries with an external land border or those bordering the 
Mediterranean to the more northerly Member States. However, the statistics 
which indicate secondary flows to the countries with an external land border 
or  those  bordering  the  Mediterranean  can  to  a  large  degree  be  attributed  to 
the practice of some Member States to fingerprint upon take back under the 
Dublin Regulation.  

3.2.2. 

'"Category 1" against "category 2"' hits 

These  hits  give  an  indication  of  routes  taken  by  persons  who  irregularly 
entered  the  territories  of  the  Member  States  before  applying  for  asylum.  In 
2010, as in 2009, most hits occurred against data sent by Greece (6,934) and 
Italy (3,752). The numbers for Hungary (545), Bulgaria (545), France (530) 
and Spain (238) were also quite significant. However, it is striking that with 
respect to Bulgaria (96%) and France (71.9%) most of these hits were in fact 
local hits.  

When comparing 2010 with 2009 a slight increase from 65.2% to 73.4% in 
the  cases  of  persons  apprehended  in  connection  with  an  irregular  border-
crossing,  who  later  decide  to  lodge  an  asylum  claim,  can  be  observed. 
However,  when  comparing  the  absolute  number  of  hits,  there  is  a  dramatic 
decrease from 20,363 in 2009 to 11,939 in 2010.  

The majority of those who entered the EU illegally via Greece (5,930), and 
moved  on,  travelled  to  Germany  (1,478),  France  (886),  the  UK  (645)  or 
Sweden (635). Those who moved on after having entered illegally via Italy 
mainly  went  to  Switzerland  (1,222),  Sweden  (642)  or  Germany  (419).  Of 
those entering via Spain (238) most moved on to either France (98), Belgium 
(39)  or  Switzerland  (39),  while  those  who  moved  on  after  having  had  their 
fingerprints  taken  in  Hungary  (545)  mainly  moved  on  to  the  neighbouring 
countries of Austria (160) or Germany (82).  

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  available  data  indicate  that  the  flows  of  persons  apprehended  when 
illegally  residing  in  another  Member  State  from  the  one  in  which  they 
claimed  asylum  mostly  end  up  in  a  few  Member  States,  in  particular 
Germany  (6,652),  Switzerland  (2,542),  the  Netherlands  (3,415),  France 
(2,232) and Austria (1,668).  

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 

EN 

8 

   EN

 
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.  

Just  as  in  the  previous  year,  2010  saw  a  further  overall  increase  in  the 
average delay of transmissions, i.e. the time elapsed between the taking and 
sending of fingerprints to the Central Unit of EURODAC. This increase can 
largely be attributed to Greece where the average delay for the transmission 
of  'category  2'  data  went  from  36.35  days  to  54.99  days  which  is  also  the 
longest delay for any category of data in any Member State. Other Member 
States with significant delays were Iceland, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania 
and the UK. 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'16  and  'missed 
hits'17.  

In  spite  of  this  development,  the  total  number  of  hits  missed  because  of  a 
delay in the transmission of fingerprints declined between 2009 (1,060) and 
2010 (362).  

As in the previous year, it is noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of 
missed  hits  can  be  attributed  to  a  delay  in  transmission  by  Greece,  namely 
353  (97.5%).  And  the  pattern  regarding  the  distribution  of  wrong  hits  also 
followed  the  same  pattern  as  in  2009  in  that  delays  in  the  transmission  by 
Denmark resulted in 46 wrong hits out of a total of 83. 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. 

16 

17 

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 

9 

   EN

 
                                                 
3.4. 

Quality of transactions 

In  2010,  the  average  rate  of  rejected  transactions18  for  all  Member  States 
increased  to  8.92%,  up  from  7.87%  in  2009.  The  following  10  Member 
States  had  a  rejection  rate  of  10%  or  above:  Malta  (19.42%),  Estonia 
(16.67%),  Portugal  (16.45%),  France  (13.58%),  the  Netherlands  (12.33%), 
Germany  (12.24%), 
the  UK  (11.77%),  Lithuania  (11.74%),  Sweden 
(10.39%)  and  Iceland  (10%).  12  Member  States  had  an  above-average 
rejection rate.  

The rejection rate did not depend on technology or weaknesses in the system. 
The causes of the rejection rate were mainly related to 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, 
in  some  cases  these  figures  included  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  in  previous 
annual reports, and the Commission urges Member States to provide specific 
training  of  national  EURODAC  operators,  as  well  as  to  configure  their 
equipment correctly in order to reduce the rejection rate. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The EURODAC Central Unit provided satisfactory results throughout 2010 
in terms of speed, output, security and cost-effectiveness. 

In 2010, the overall volume of transaction fell by 15.3% (to 299,459), with 
decreases  in  all  3  categories  of  transactions.  The  number  of  'category  1' 
transactions  fell  by  9%  (to  215,463),  while  the  number  of  'category  2' 
transactions  dropped  by  64%  (to  11,156)  and  the  number  of  'category  3' 
transactions fell by 14.8% (to 72,840).  

The average rate of rejected transactions for all Member States increased to 
8.92% in 2010, up from 7.87% in 2009. 

Concerns  remain  about  the  persisting  and  in  some  cases  even  increasing 
delays in the transmission of data to the EURODAC Central Unit.  

18 

A transaction may be rejected due to a data validation issue, fingerprint errors or insufficient 
quality (see also section 3.1. ibid). 

EN 

10 

   EN

 
                                                 
Table 1: EURODAC Central Unit, Database content status the 31/12/2010 

ANNEX  

EN 

11 

   EN

 
 
Table 2: Successful transactions to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2010 

EN 

12 

   EN

 
 
Table 3: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 1, in 2010 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 4: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 2, in 2010 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 5: Hit repartition – Category 3 against Category 1, in 2010 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 6: Rejected transactions, percentage in 2010 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 7: Average time between the date of taking the fingerprints and their sending to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2010 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 8: Category 1 against Category 1 hit in wrong sense, in 2010 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 9: Distribution of CAT1/CAT2 hits missed because a delay when sending the CAT2, in 2010 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 10: Distribution of hits against blocked cases (art. 12 of the EC Regulation 2725/2000), in 2010 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 11: Count of category 9 per Member State, in 2010 

EN 

21 

EN