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 2011
Date: 2012-09-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU visa policy, biometrics, data protection, database management system, disclosure of information, identity document, information system

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.9.2012  
COM(2012) 533 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 2011 

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 2011 

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  ninth  annual  report  includes  information  on  the 
management  and  the  performance  of  the  system  in  2011.  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 

The  Commission  had  adopted  Recasts  of  the  EURODAC  Regulation  in 
20083  and  20094.  These  were  followed  by  an  Amended  proposal  of  11 
October  2010  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]5,  which  was  discussed  by  the  co-legislators  in  early  2011.  An 
orientation vote in the European Parliament's LIBE committee took place on 
03.02.2011 at which the Rapporteur's draft report was adopted.6 Two Council 
preparatory body meetings took place to discuss the proposal.  

The Polish Presidency noted to the Council on 21 October 2011 that "Work 
on  the  Eurodac  Regulation  is  on  hold.  The  overwhelming  majority  of 
delegations  maintains  its  support for  inserting  a  clause  in  the  EURODAC 
Regulation  enabling  Member  States 
their law  enforcement 
authorities' access to the EURODAC central database under strict conditions 

to  allow 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p.1. 
Article 24(1) EURODAC Regulation.  
COM(2008) 825 final. 
COM(2009) 342 final and COM(2009) 344 final. 
COM(2010) 555 final.  
See European Parliament document LIBE_PV(2011)0203_1. 

EN 

2 

   EN

 
                                                 
the  purposes  of  fighting 

terrorism  and  organised  crime."7  The 
for 
Commission had previously presented a proposal allowing for the possibility 
of access to EURODAC by law enforcement authorities8, but this had lapsed 
with  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty.  As  a  consequence, 
negotiations  on  the  2010  proposal  (that  did  not  include  law  enforcement 
access) did not resume in 2011. However, given the overwhelming majority 
of Member States asking for it, it has since become clear that including law 
enforcement access for EURODAC is needed as part of a balanced deal on 
the negotiations of the Common European Asylum System  package, with a 
view  to  completing  the  package  by  the  end  of  2012.  Accordingly,  the 
Commission  has  decided  to  table  again  a  proposal  permitting  law 
enforcement access to EURODAC, presented on 30 May 2012.  

THE EURODAC CENTRAL UNIT9  

1.3.  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 2011, the Final Acceptance 
Test (FAT) was successfully completed. 

The  EURODAC  PLUS  system  was  formally  accepted  in  April  2011,  after 
completion  of  the  final  acceptance  test  which  consisted  of  3  consecutive 
months of trouble free operations. 

The  old  EURODAC  IT  infrastructure  was  decommissioned  in  November 
2011.  

1.4. 

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 

7 
8 
9 

"Common European Asylum Policy – State of Play". See Council Document 15843/11.  
COM(2009) 344 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

 
                                                 
upgrade  of  EURODAC  (EURODAC  PLUS).  Although  the  EURODAC 
Central  Unit  in  itself  did  not  register  any  downtime  in  2011,  the  scheduled 
migration  from  EURODAC 
to  EURODAC  PLUS  and  related  data 
synchronisation  between  the  systems  required  the  interruption  of  incoming 
traffic and consequently the processing of incoming transactions for a period 
of  16  hours.  Overall,  in  2011  the  EURODAC  Central  Unit  was  available 
99.82% of the time. 

The expenditure for maintaining and operating the Central Unit in 2011 was 
€1,040,703.82  and  marked  a  decrease  in  the  expenditure  compared  to 
previous years (€ 2.115.056,51 in  2010, €1,221,183.83 in 2009), which was, 
mainly  due  to  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 pa id in 2009, 60% (€ 1,833,417.29) 
was paid in 2010. The remaining 20% (€ 611,139.10) was paid in 2011 and 
represented 58.72% of the whole year's expenditure. 

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 
network10.  The  Commission  also  provided  (via  the  ISA  Programme11)  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.  

1.5. 

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' ("Category 9") 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 

In  2011,  a  total  of  226  such  searches  were  conducted  which  represents  a 
large  increase  in  comparison  with  2010  (66)  and  2009  (42).  However,  the 
vast  majority  of  these  cases  were  conducted  by  Spain  in  May,  June  and 

10

11 

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

 
                                                 
 
August  2011  (10,  22  and  132  cases  respectively),  meaning  that  Spain 
accounted for 79% of all special searches.  

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. 

2. 

FIGURES AND FINDINGS  

The annex attached to the present annual report contains tables with factual 
data  produced  by  the  Central  Unit  for  the  period  01.01.2011  –  31.12.2011. 
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.  

2.1. 

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 quality12. 

In 2011, the Central Unit received a total of 412,303 successful transactions, 
which represents an increase of 37.7% compared with 2010 (299,459). This 
is in contrast with the trend from the previous year which had seen a decrease 
in the number of successful transactions. The biggest increases were in Malta 
(582.4%) and Italy (559.1%) and can be attributed to the Arab Spring.  

The trend in the number of transactions of data of asylum seekers ('category 
1')  increased  in  2011  to  275,857  (28%)  requests  compared  with  2010 
(215,463) and 2009 (236,936).  

12 

Table 2 of the Annex details the successful transactions per Member State, with a breakdown 
by category, between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011. 

EN 

5 

   EN

 
                                                 
There  was  a  change  in  trend  regarding  the  number  of  persons  who  were 
apprehended  in  connection  with  an  irregular  crossing  of  an  external  border 
('category  2').  After  falling  to  31,071  transactions  in  2009,  and  further 
falling to 11,156 in 2010, the number of transactions increased significantly 
in  2011  to  57,693  (417.1%).  Italy  introduced  by  far  the  majority  of  these 
transactions (50,555 or 88%), followed at some distance by Spain (4,204 or 
7%).  By  contrast,  whereas  Greece  introduced  the  highest  number  of 
transactions  in  this  category  in  2009  (18,714)  and  again  in  2010  (4,486), 
Greece introduced only 530 transactions in 2011 (-88%).  

In  2011,  8  States  (Switzerland,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Ireland, 
Luxembourg,  Latvia,  Norway,  Portugal)  did  not  send  any  'category  2' 
transactions (5 of these States had also not sent any in 2010). 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 Regulation13. 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  present  on  the  territory  of  a  Member  State)  rose  slightly  by 
8.1% in 2011 (to 78,753) compared with 2010 (72,840). 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 
present third-country nationals14. In the cases mentioned by the EURODAC 
Regulation15,  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.  The  largest 
number  of  'category  3'  transactions  in  2011  was  from  Germany  (22,851  or 

13 

14 
15 

'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

 
                                                 
29%), the UK (12,859 or 16%) and The Netherlands (11,154 or 14%). This is 
consistent with the trend in 2010.  

2.2. 

'Hits' 

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

From  a  total  of  275,857  asylum  applications  recorded  in  EURODAC  in 
2011, 22.4% were recorded as 'multiple asylum applications' (i.e. second or 
more), which means that in 61,819 cases, the fingerprints of the same person 
had already been recorded as a 'category 1' transaction in the same or another 
Member State. In 2010, the same figure was 52,064 (24.2%). 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 
to  asylum  applications  previously 
applications  which  corresponded 
registered  in  either  another  ('foreign  hits')  or  in  the  same  Member  State 
('local hits')16.  

In  2011,  a  total  of  38.6%  of  all  multiple  applications  were  local  hits.  In  a 
number of Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 
Spain,  Ireland,  Italy,  The  Netherlands,  Poland,  the  UK)  this  figure  even 
exceeds 50%. The percentage of local hits in 2010 was 35%. 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 status17.  

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 

16 

17 

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

 
                                                 
receive  the  highest  number  of  foreign  hits  from  asylum  seekers  who 
previously lodged an application in Poland (1,746). The same pattern can be 
observed  in  Germany  where  the  highest  number  of  foreign  hits  occurred 
against  data  from  Sweden  (1,314).  The  statistics  show  that  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.  

2.2.2. 

"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 
2011 most hits occurred against data sent by Italy; (4,268), Greece (1,805), 
Spain  (555),  Hungary  (446)  and  Bulgaria  (76).  However,  it  is  striking  that 
with respect to Italy (85.9%) most of these hits were in fact local hits.  

When comparing 2011 with 2010 a dramatic decrease from 73.4% to 21% 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  decrease 
from 11,939 in 2010 to 7,384 in 2011.  

The majority of those who entered the EU illegally via Italy and moved on, 
travelled  to  Switzerland  (2,288),  Germany  (688),  or  Sweden  (363).  Those 
who  moved  on  after  having  entered  illegally  via  Greece  mainly  went  to 
Germany (323),  the UK  (195) or France  (193). Of those entering via Spain 
(555) most moved on to either Switzerland (161), France (139), or Belgium 
(130), while those who moved on after having had their fingerprints taken in 
Hungary mainly moved on to the neighbouring countries of Austria (163) or 
Germany (66).  

2.2.3. 

'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 present in another Member State from the one in which they claimed 
asylum  mostly  end  up  in  a  few  Member  States,  in  particular  Germany 
(7,749),  Switzerland  (2,225),  the  Netherlands  (3,418),  France  (2,255), 
Austria (1,739) and Norway (1,612).  

2.3. 

Transaction delay 

The  EURODAC  Regulation  currently  only  provides  a  very  vague  deadline 
for  the  transmission  of  fingerprints,  which  can  cause  significant  delays  in 

EN 

8 

   EN

 
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  previous 
annual  reports  and  highlighted  as  a  problem  of  implementation  in  the 
Evaluation Report.  

Contrary to the previous years, 2011 saw an overall decrease in the average 
delay of transmissions, i.e. the time elapsed between the taking and sending 
of fingerprints to the Central Unit of EURODAC. Most of the Member States 
and  Associated  Countries  delay 
the 
in 
EURODAC Central Unit is between 0 and 4 days. Exceptions to this average 
have  been  noticed  mainly  in  the  transmission  of  CAT2  fingerprints  for  the 
following  Member  States:  Germany  (4.67),  Greece  (12.03),  Netherlands 
(8.83), Slovakia (6.4) and UK (5.75). 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'18 and 'missed hits'19.  

transmitting  fingerprints 

to 

Due  to  this  general  improvement  in  the  average  delay  of  transmission,  the 
total  number  of  hits  missed  because  of  a  delay  in  the  transmission  of 
fingerprints declined from 362 in 2010 down to only 9 in 2011. 

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 6 
(66.6%).  The  pattern  regarding  the  distribution  of  wrong  hits  also  followed 
the  same  pattern  as  in  2010  in  that  delays  in  the  transmission  by  Denmark 
resulted  in  28  wrong  hits  followed  by  Finland  with  23  wrong  hits  out  of  a 
total of 89. 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. 

18 

19 

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

 
                                                 
2.4. 

Quality of transactions 

In 2011, the average rate of rejected transactions20 for all Member States and 
Associated  Countries  decreased  to  5.87%,  down  from  8.92%  in  2010.  The 
following  Member  States  had  a  rejection  rate  of  10%  or  above:  Estonia 
(21.65%), France (13.41%), Malta (13.31%), Portugal (15.42%), and the UK 
(11.08%). In total, 10 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. 

3. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The EURODAC Central Unit provided satisfactory results throughout 2011 
in terms of speed, output, security and cost-effectiveness. 

In 2011, the overall volume of transactions increased by 37.7% (to 412,303), 
with increases in all 3 categories of transactions. The number of 'category 1' 
transactions increased by 28% (to 275,857), while the number of 'category 2' 
transactions  grew  by  17.1%  (to  57,693)  and  the  number  of  'category  3' 
transactions increased by a more modest 8.1% (to 78,753).  

The average rate of rejected transactions for all Member States decreased to 
5.87% in 2011, from 8.92% in 2010. 

There  was  a  general  improvement  concerning  delays  in  the  transmission  of 
data  to  the  EURODAC  Central  Unit,  although  further  improvements  could 
still be made. 

20 

A transaction may be rejected due to a data validation issue, fingerprint errors or insufficient 
quality (see also section 2.1. ibid). 

EN 

10 

   EN

 
                                                 
Table 1: EURODAC Central Unit, Database content status the 31/12/2011 

ANNEX  

EN 

11 

   EN

 
 
Table 2: Successful transactions to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2011 

EN 

12 

   EN

 
 
Table 3: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 1, in 2011 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 4: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 2, in 2011 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 5: Hit repartition – Category 3 against Category 1, in 2011 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 6: Rejected transactions, percentage in 2011 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 7: Average time between the date of taking the fingerprints and their sending to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2011 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 8: Category 1 against Category 1 hit in wrong sense, in 2011 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 9: Distribution of CAT1/CAT2 hits missed because a delay when sending the CAT2, in 2011 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 10: Distribution of hits against blocked cases (art. 12 of the EC Regulation 2725/2000), in 2011 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 11: Count of category 9 "special searches" per Member State, in 2011 

EN 

21 

EN