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 2012
Date: 2013-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cost-effectiveness analysis, data protection, data transmission, database management system, identity document, personal data

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.6.2013  
COM(2013) 485 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 2012 

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 2012 

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  tenth  annual  report  includes  information  on  the 
management  and  the  performance  of  the  system  in  2012.  It  assesses  the 
output and the cost-effectiveness of EURODAC, as well as the quality of its 
Central Unit’s service. This is the last Annual Report that will be presented 
by  the  Commission  –  future  Annual  Reports  will  be  presented  by  the  eu-
LISA (IT Agency). 

1.2. 

Legal and policy developments 

The Commission tabled a new proposal permitting law enforcement access to 
EURODAC,  presented  on  30  May  2012.3  The  Commission  first  adopted  a 
Recast  of  the  EURODAC  Regulation  in  20084  that  did  not  permit  for  law 
enforcement.  Amended  proposals  were  adopted  in  20095  to  allow  for  law 
enforcement  (that  lapsed  with  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)); and in 20106 again without law 
enforcement.  It  became  clear  that  law  enforcement  access  would  be  an 
essential element of the Common European Asylum System for the Council 
and therefore the Commission adopted its 2012 proposal.  
THE EURODAC CENTRAL UNIT7  

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p.1. 
Article 24(1) EURODAC Regulation.  
COM(2012) 254 final.  
COM(2008) 825 final. 
COM(2009) 342 final and COM(2009) 344 final. 
COM(2010) 555 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 

2 

   EN

 
                                                 
1.3.  Management of the system 

Article 38 of the "IT Agency Regulation"8 states that the new Agency would 
take over the management of EURODAC from 1 December 2012. However, 
in order to ensure the continuity of services as foreseen in the Regulation, a 
transition period is necessary to complete the transfer of the management of 
EURODAC  from  the  existing  sites  in  Brussels  (Belgium)  and  Luxembourg 
to  the  new  sites  in  Strasbourg  (France)  and  Sankt  Johann  im  Pongau 
(Austria). Consequently, management of EURODAC is expected to move to 
the Agency over the course of 2013.  

The  process  of  the  handover  in  2013  involves  training  the  staff  of  the 
Agency;  establishing  a  link  to  allow  the  Agency  to  manage  the  existing 
EURODAC IT infrastructure, based in Luxembourg, from Strasbourg until a 
clone  of  the  Central  Unit  is  installed  in  Strasbourg  and  the  Backup  Central 
Unit  in  Sankt  Johann  im  Pongau;  and  then  decommissioning  the  IT 
infrastructure  for  the  old  Central  Unit  and  Backup  Central  Unit  in 
Luxembourg.  

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. The EURODAC Central Unit in itself did not register any downtime in 
2012. Overall, in 2012 the EURODAC Central Unit was available 99.98% of 
the time. 

The expenditure for maintaining and operating the Central Unit in 2012 was 
€421,021.75 and marked a decrease in the e xpenditure compared to previous 
years  (€  1,040,703.82  in  2011,  €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).  

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 
network9.  The  Commission  also  provided  (via  the  ISA  Programme10)  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.  

8 

9

10 

Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 
2011  establishing  a  European  Agency  for  the  operational  management  of  large-scale  IT 
systems in the area of freedom, security and justice, OJ 1.11.2011, L286 p.1 
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 

3 

   EN

 
                                                 
 
In  terms  of  cost-effectiveness,  the  EURODAC  system  enables  Member 
States  to  compare  both  the  data  originally  transmitted  by  other  Member 
States  and  the  data  they  themselves  originally  transmitted  in  order  to 
establish  whether  an  applicant  has  previously  applied  for  asylum  (either  in 
another State or in their own). Consequently, this permits important savings 
for  national  budgets  as  Member  States  do  not  have  to  procure  a  national 
automated  fingerprint  identification  system  (AFIS)  for  the  purpose  of 
comparing the fingerprints of asylum applicants within that State. 

As  there  were  411,236  successful  transactions  to  the  Central  Unit  in  2012 
and the expenditure for maintaining and operating the Central Unit in 2012 
was €421,021.75, this represents a cost  of just €1.02 per transaction.  

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  2012,  a  total  of  111  such  searches  were  conducted  which  represents  a 
50.9% decrease in comparison with 2011 (226) but is still much higher than 
the 2010 figure of 66 or 2009 figure of 42. 51 of the special searches in 2012 
(46%) were from France. By contrast, in 2011 Spain had 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  01.01.2012  –  31.12.2012. 
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 

EN 

4 

   EN

 
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 quality11. 

In 2012, the Central Unit received a total of 411,236 successful transactions, 
which represents a decrease of 0.26% compared with 2011 (412,303). At first 
glance,  this  implies  remarkable  stability  compared  with  the  differences  in 
previous years. However, for some Member States the numbers varied very 
considerably  compared  with  the  previous  year.  The  most  notable  case  was 
Italy,  where  transactions  fell  from  96,685  in  2011  to  30,616  (-68.33%)  in 
2012.  This  figure  is  much  more  in  line  with  previous  years  and  again 
highlights  the  effect  of  the  Arab  Spring  in  2011  both  on  the  numbers  of 
applicants for international protection and of irregular migrants apprehended 
crossing a border. Other large decreases were notable in Latvia and Finland, 
as  well  as  a  notable  reduction  in  Malta.  On  the  other  hand,  the  number  of 
transactions in Germany, Sweden, Bulgaria, Poland and Greece all increased 
somewhat. Greece saw the highest percentage increase from 12,469 in 2011 
to 34,294 (175%). The big increase in Greece was in category 2 cases, which 
had seen a significant fall the previous year.  

The trend in the number of transactions of data of asylum seekers ('category 
1') increased slightly in 2012 to 285,959, up from 275,857 (3.66%) in 2011 
and 215,463 in 2010.  

Notwithstanding  the  increase  in  Greece,  there  was  a  general  reduction 
regarding the number of persons who were apprehended in connection with 
an  irregular  crossing  of  an  external  border  ('category  2')  from  57,693  in 
2011 down to 39,300 in 2012 (-31.88%). The biggest changes were, as noted 
above, in Greece where the figure went from only 530 in 2011 to 21,951 in 
2012 (4042%); Bulgaria from 509 in 2011 to 1,518 in 2012 (198%); Hungary 
from 906 in 2011 to 260 in 2012 (-71.3%) and Italy from 50,555 in 2011 to 
11,272 in 2012 (-77%).  

In 2011, 4 States (Czech Republic, Iceland, Latvia, Sweden) did not send any 
'category  2'  transactions  and  a  further  9  Member  States  sent  fewer  than  10 
transactions  (Belgium,  Switzerland,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania). 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 Regulation12. This issue will be 

11 

12 

Table 2 of the Annex details the successful transactions per Member State, with a breakdown 
by category, between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2012. 
'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 

EN 

5 

   EN

 
                                                 
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 by 9.17% to 
85,976,  up  from  78,753  in  2011  and  72,840  in  2010.  Ireland  was,  as  in 
previous  years,  the  only  Member  State  that  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 nationals13. In the cases mentioned by the EURODAC 
Regulation14,  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  2012  was  from  Germany  (24,621  or 
29%), the Netherlands (11,172 or 13%) and the UK (10,279 or 12%). This is 
consistent with the trends in 2010 and 2011.  

2.2. 

'Hits' 

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

From a total of 285,959 asylum applications recorded in EURODAC in 2012, 
27.48% were recorded as 'multiple asylum applications' (i.e. second or more), 
which  means  that  in  78,591  cases,  the  fingerprints  of  the  same  person  had 
already  been  recorded  as  a  'category  1'  transaction  in  the  same  or  another 
Member State. In 2011, the same figure was 61,819 (22.4%). 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.  

13 
14 

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

 
                                                                                                                                            
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')15.  

In 2012, a total of 34.4% of all multiple applications were local hits (down 
from  38.6%  in  2011).  In  a  number  of  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, 
Poland, the UK) this figure even exceeds 50%. In the case of Belgium, local 
hits accounted for 10,037 of the 14,883 applications (67.4%) and in Cyprus 
local hits accounted for 139 of the 148 applications (93.9%). 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 status16.  

lodged  an  application 

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 
in  Poland  (2,498).  Germany  and 
Switzerland  received  a  high  number  of  asylum  seekers  who  had  previously 
lodged  an  application  in  Sweden  (2,567  and  1,050  respectively).  The 
statistics show, as in previous years, 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 
2012 most hits occurred against data sent by Greece (8,097), Italy; (7,171), 
Spain (1,385), Hungary (291) and Bulgaria (134) (see Table 5). However, it 
is striking that with respect to Bulgaria most of these hits were in fact local 
hits (84.9%). In 2011, 85.9% of the hits in Italy were local hits, but in 2012 
this had reduced to 46%.  

15 

16 

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

 
                                                 
When  comparing  2012  with  2011  an  increase  from  21%  to  65.3%  in  the 
cases  of  persons  apprehended  in  connection  with  an  irregular  border-
crossing, who later decide to lodge an asylum claim, can be observed. This 
reflects an increase in absolute terms from 7,384 in 2011 to 17,319 in 2012.  

The majority of those who entered the EU illegally via Italy and moved on, 
travelled to Switzerland (2,978), Germany (1,359),  or Sweden  (881).  Those 
who  moved  on  after  having  entered  illegally  via  Greece  mainly  went  to 
Germany  (2,168),  the Sweden (1,612) or Austria (1,216). Of those entering 
via  Spain,  most  moved  on  to  either France  (410),  Germany  (284),  Belgium 
(259) or Switzerland (242), while those who moved on after having had their 
fingerprints  taken  in  Hungary  mainly  moved  on  to  the  neighbouring 
countries of Germany (61) or Austria (59).  

2.2.3. 

'Category 3 against category 1' hits 

These  hits  give  indications  as  to  where  irregular  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 
(10,798  –  up  from  7,749  in  2011),  The  Netherlands  (3,742),  Switzerland 
(3,682), Norway (2,382), France (2,165) and Austria (2,111) (see Table 7).  

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 
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.  

As in 2011, the average delay of transmissions i.e. the time elapsed between 
the taking and sending of fingerprints to the Central Unit of EURODAC was 
relatively low in 2012. Most of the Member States and Associated Countries 
delay in transmitting fingerprints to the EURODAC Central Unit is between 
0 and 4 days. Exceptions to this average have been noticed for the following 
Member  States:  Cyprus  CAT-2  (15.00),  Finland  CAT-1  (10.16);  Greece 
CAT-1  (5.00)  and  CAT-2  (10.43);  UK  CAT-2  (6.01);  Germany  CAT-1 
(5.19),  Spain  AT-1  (4.41),  .  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'17 and 'missed hits'18.  

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 

EN 

8 

   EN

 
                                                 
2.4. 

The  total  number  of  hits  missed  because  of  a  delay  in  the  transmission  of 
fingerprints doubled from 9 in 2011 to 18 in 2012, but it should be noted that 
this is still a huge improvement on the 2010 figure of 362. Of the 18 missed 
hits in 2012, 12 were attributable to greece, 4 to Spain and 2 to Slovakia.  

There was a reduction in the number of wrong hits from 89 in 2011 to 65 to 
2012. Of these, 13 were from Finland and 10 from Belgium. The figure from 
Denmark,  that  had  been  28  in  2011,  was  reduced  to  7  in  2012.  The 
Commission  continues  to  urge  the  Member  States  to  make  all  necessary 
efforts to send their data promptly in accordance with Articles 4 and 8 of the 
EURODAC  Regulation.  New  transmission  deadlines  have  been  included  in 
the Commission's EURODAC Recast proposal with a view to resolving the 
issue of delays in transmission.  

Quality of transactions 
In 2012, the average rate of rejected transactions19 for all Member States and 
Associated  Countries  increased  slightly  to  6.63%,  up  from  5.87%,  in  2011. 
The following Member States had a rejection rate of 10% or above: Estonia 
(22.4%),  France  (10.51%),  Ireland  (18.28%),  Liechtenstein  (13.7%),  Malta 
(30.47%),  Portugal  (19.37%),  and  the  UK  (11.28%).  In  total,  9  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. 

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

18 

19 

EN 

9 

   EN

 
                                                                                                                                            
3. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The  EURODAC  Central  Unit  provided  good  results  throughout  2012  in 
terms of speed, output, security and cost-effectiveness. 

In 2012, the overall volume of transactions decreased by 0.26% to 411,236. 
CAT-1  transactions  increased  by  3.66%  to  285,959;  CAT-2  transactions 
decreased  by  31.88%  to  39,300  (notwithstanding  a  massive  increase  in 
Greece  of  4042%  to  21,951);  CAT-3  transactions  increased  by  9.17%  to 
85,976.  

The average rate of rejected transactions for all Member States increased to 
6.63% in 2012, from 5.87% in 2011. 

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

EN 

10 

   EN

 
Table 1: EURODAC Central Unit, Database content status 31/12/2012 

ANNEX  

AT 

BE 

BG 

CH 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IS 

IT 

LI 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

CAT 1 

CAT 2 

Blocked 
CAT 1 

125.192 

155.203 

4.720 

66.087 

29.445 

14.455 

297.966 

17.629 

204 

34.672 

24.455 

358.241 

235 

8 

1.796 

2 

18 

0 

61 

0 

1 

7.363 

29 

738 

114.615 

21.329 

16.998 

26.880 

381 

954 

5 

2 

8.475 

3.584 

12 

4.207 

0 

371 

19.533 

0 

31 

545 

758 

0 

0 

302 

1.671 

0 

177.342 

61.776 

2.502 

50 

1.864 

8.134 

620 

5.924 

87.154 

80.713 

44.056 

1.373 

7.317 

201.864 

3.599 

15.878 

0 

5 

2 

0 

6 

25 

17 

23 

1 

46 

0 

57 

43 

0 

47 

17 

0 

1 

5.012 

8 

441 

37 

410 

5.821 

31 

1 

277.619 

478 

32.747 

2.200.650 

95.020 

86.564 

Total 
2.295.670 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
Table 
2012 

2: 

Successful 

transactions to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 3: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 1, in 2012 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 4: Hit repartition – Category 1 against Category 2, in 2012 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
Table 5: Category 1 hits against Category 2 data sets 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CH 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IS 

IT 

LI 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Total 

Local  

74 
3 
888 
2 
1 
0 
39 
0 
1 
1797 
30 
335 
9479 
380 
1 
0 
13282 
0 
7 
2 
0 
1 
20 
3 
5 
0 
18 
1 
29 
53 
50 

46 
2 
754 
1 
1 
0 
38 
0 
1 
412 
28 
212 
1382 
89 
1 
0 
6111 
0 
2 
2 
0 
0 
11 
3 
2 
0 
3 
0 
6 
36 
39 

Foreign Hit 
(Total-Local)  % Local 
28
1
134
1
0
0   
1
0   
0
1385
2
123
8097
291
0
0   

62,16
66,67
84,91
50,00
100,00

97,44

100,00
22,93
93,33
63,28
14,58
23,42
100,00

7171

46,01

0   
5
0
0   
1
9
0
3
0   

15
1
23
17
11

28,57
100,00

0,00
55,00
100,00
40,00

16,67
0,00
20,69
67,92
78,00

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
  
 
Table 6: Hit repartition – Category 3 against Category 1, in 2012 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
Table  7:  Category  3  against  Category  1  (flows  of  persons  apprehended  when  illegally 
present in another Member State from the one in which they claimed asylum 

Local 

Total 

Total-Local 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CH 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IS 

IT 

LI 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

NO 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

1544 

2367 

96 

3685 

30 

131 

1709 

163 

0 

24 

24 

293 

18 

309 

0 

2 

166 

0 

6 

36 

3 

0 

2891 

1410 

532 

2 

152 

73 

36 

47 

3655 

4343 

202 

7367 

30 

416 

12507 

1112 

64 

115 

118 

2458 

19 

906 

0 

37 

297 

0 

82 

213 

26 

10 

6633 

3792 

1838 

44 

197 

192 

195 

183 

770 

1514 

2111
1976
106
3682
0
285
10798
949
64
91
94
2165
1
597
0
35
131
0
76
177
23
10
3742
2382
1306
42
45
119
159
136
744

Total 

16519 

48565 

32046 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
Table 8: Rejected transactions, percentage in 2012 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 9: Average time between the date of taking the fingerprints and their sending to the EURODAC Central Unit, in 2012 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
Table 10: Category 1 against Category 1 hit in wrong sense, in 2012 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 11: Distribution of CAT1/CAT2 hits missed because a delay when sending the CAT2, in 2012 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 12: Distribution of hits against blocked cases (art. 12 of the EC Regulation 2725/2000), in 2012 

EN 

22 

EN 

 
  
 
Table 13: Count of category 9 "special searches" per Member State, in 2012 

EN 

23 

EN