52007SC1184

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 11.09.2007

SEC (2007) 1184

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit in 2006

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit in 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit in 2006 2

1. Introduction 3

1.1. Scope of this report 3

1.2. Legal Background 3

2. The EURODAC Central Unit 4

2.1. General Description 4

2.2. Management of the system 4

3. Evaluation of the Central Unit 5

3.1. Cost-effectiveness 5

3.2. Quality of service 5

3.3. Data Protection 5

3.4. Security 6

4. Figures and Findings 6

4.1. Introductory remarks 6

4.2. Successful transactions 7

4.3. “Hits” 9

4.3.1. Multiple asylum applications (Annex 4) 9

4.3.2. “Category 1 against category 1” hits 10

4.3.3. “Category 1 against category 2” hits 10

4.3.4. “Category 3 against category 1” hits 10

4.4. Transaction delay 11

4.5. Quality of transactions 12

5. Conclusions 12

INTRODUCTION

Scope of this report

Council Regulation EC/2725/2000 of 11 December 2000, concerning the establishment of ‘EURODAC’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (hereinafter referred to as “EURODAC Regulation”)[1], stipulates that the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council an annual report on the activities of the Central Unit [2]. The present fourth annual report includes information on the management and the performance of the system in 2006. It assesses the outputs and the cost-effectiveness of EURODAC, as well as the quality of its Central Unit’s service.

Legal Background

The legal background of the EURODAC Regulation and its developments were presented in the previous annual reports on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit[3]. Important changes in the geographical scope of the EURODAC Regulation have taken place in 2006. Since 1st April 2006, Denmark , who in accordance with its protocol to the Treaty was not party to the Dublin[4] and EURODAC Regulations, participates in the system, pursuant to an international agreement with the European Community.[5] The relations between Denmark, Norway and Iceland concerning the application of those Regulations are effective since 1st May 2006, as established in a Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community, Norway and Iceland on the application of the Dublin system.[6] From March to June 2006, negotiations were held between the European Community, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, in order for Liechtenstein to participate in the Dublin and EURODAC Regulations, in parallel with its accession to the Schengen acquis . In November 2006, the Commission presented proposals to the Council for decisions on the subject[7], as well as on the participation of Denmark to the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on the application of the Dublin system.[8]

THE EURODAC CENTRAL UNIT

General Description

A general description of the EURODAC Central Unit, as well as the definitions of the different types of transactions processed by the Central Unit and of the hits they can create, can be found in the first annual report on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit[9].

Management of the system

The management of the EURODAC Central Unit by the Commission continued in 2006, with no major changes.

The Commission services actively supported the technical preparation of Denmark to link up to the EURODAC Central Unit. Denmark notified the Commission that it was technically ready to start EURODAC activities on 1st April 2006 and communicated the list of the authorities which have access to the EURODAC data, as required by Article 27(2) and Article 15(2) respectively of the EURODAC Regulation.

In view of the enlargement of the EU to Romania and Bulgaria, the Commission services also prepared these countries to link up with the EURODAC system, as of 1st January 2007. Their accession to the system implied prior operational testing, which involved 69 tests.

In 2005, the Commission services carried out a technical assessment study as a part of the EURODAC Global Evaluation. The study concluded that, given the increasing amount of data to manage (some categories of transactions have to be stored for 10 years), the natural obsolescence of the technical platform (delivered in 2001) and the unpredictable trends of the EURODAC transaction volume due to the accession of new Member States, an evolution of the EURODAC system has to be envisaged. The planned evolution has been temporarily suspended in 2006, due to the upcoming Biometric Matching System (BMS) and the foreseen integration of EURODAC and BMS.

However, the necessary upgrades have been implemented. In particular, the EURODAC Business Continuity System has been upgraded in order to be able to fully support the Member States in case of disaster or prolonged Central Unit unavailability. In order to continue to fulfil the obligations under the EURODAC Regulation and ensure the provision of the required level of services to the Member States, further updates/upgrades to the EURODAC system (both Central Unit and Business Continuity System) have been envisaged in 2007, taking into account the planned integration/synergies with the BMS project.

As the currently running TESTA II network is reaching the end of all maintenance and upgrade contracts, the Commission has signed the "secure-Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations (s-TESTA) network" contract in 2006. S-TESTA is planned to be operational by November 2007 and will replace the current TESTA II network, providing a higher level of security and reliability.

EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL UNIT

Cost-effectiveness

After four years of operations, Community expenditure on all externalised activities specific to EURODAC totalled €7,8 million. The expenditure for maintaining and operating the Central Unit in 2006 was €244.240,73.

Savings could be made by the efficient use of existing resources and infrastructures managed by the Commission, such as the use of the TESTA network.

With regard to national budgets, the EURODAC Central Unit enables the Member States to use the Central Unit for comparing the data submitted with their own data already stored in EURODAC, in order to find out whether the applicant has already applied for asylum before in their own country. The Community also provided (via the IDA Programme) the communication and security services for exchange of data between the Central and National Units. These costs initially to be borne by each Member State, in accordance with Article 21 (2) and (3) of the Regulation, were finally covered by the Community making use of common available infrastructures, thereby generating savings for national budgets.

Quality of service

The Commission services have 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. These services not only include those provided directly by the Central Unit (e.g. matching capacity, storage of data, etc), but cover also communication and security services for the transmission of data between the Central Unit and the National Access Points.

There was no unscheduled system down-time in 2006. The Central Unit was unable to process transactions for 1 hour on 22nd September 2006, due to an unscheduled reboot of the fingerprint matching subsystem. No transactions were lost and all received transactions were replied to within the 24 hours deadline, as foreseen in the Regulations. In 2006, the EURODAC Central Unit was available 99.99% of the time.

No Member State has notified the Commission of the existence of a false hit, i.e. a wrong identification performed by the AFIS, in accordance with Article 4 (6) of the Regulation.

Data Protection

In 2006, the Commission services have continued expressing concern about the surprisingly high number of “special searches”. This category of transactions is established by Article 18 paragraph 2 of the EURODAC Regulation. Reflecting the data protection rules to safeguard the rights of the data subject to access his/her own data, this provision provides for a possibility to conduct such "special searches" on request of the person whose data are stored in the central database. The numbers of such transactions in 2006 vary from zero to 488 per Member State.

The Commission services have alerted the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and contacted bilaterally several Member States of particular concern. Some national authorities have explained the reasons for such a frequent use of this special category of searches. Namely, such transactions have been used for testing and training purposes. Some authorities also acknowledged that such use was erroneous. Following a final clarification on the correct application of Article 18 and on the different technical modalities of the EURODAC system, the Commission services are committed to take steps against the Member States which persist in misusing this important data-protection related provision.

Security

Following the first phase of the EDPS security audit on the EURODAC Central Unit carried out in 2005, the second phase (specific on IT security) has been launched in 2006. The audit team is composed of EDPS officials and National Security Experts provided by the European Network and Information Security Agency - ENISA.

It was agreed that, due to the complex and heterogeneous configuration of Member States TESTA II connections, the TESTA II network would not be part of the audit, and that the scope of the audit would be limited to the EURODAC Central Unit. All the requested security documentation has been provided to the EDPS (list of security procedures and security related documentation, list of locations, systems and applications) and the audit team visited all the EURODAC premises (Central Unit, Business Continuity System and Management Rooms) during 2006. Further audit actions were planned for the first quarter 2007 and the final report is expected later in 2007.

In accordance with one of the recommendations included in the EDPS report on the first phase of its audit on EURODAC, the Commission services launched in 2006 a risk analysis of the EURODAC premises. The result of this exercise, carried out by the Security Directorate of the Commission, was that the existing measures in place to protect the installations of EURODAC from the threat of espionage, terrorism, crime and political extremism, as well as the protection of persons and property, generally comply with the Commission's policy on such matters.

FIGURES AND FINDINGS

Introductory remarks

The annexes contain tables with factual data produced by the Central Unit for the period 1.1.2006 – 31.12.2006. The EURODAC statistics are based on records of fingerprints from all individuals aged 14 years or over who have made applications for asylum in the Member States, who were apprehended when crossing a Member State's external border irregularly, or who were found illegally present on the territory of a Member State, if the competent authorities judge it necessary to check a potential prior asylum application.

It should be noted that EURODAC data on asylum applications are not comparable with those produced by Eurostat, which are based on monthly statistical data returns from the Ministries of Justice and of the Interior. There are a number of methodological reasons for the differences. The Eurostat definitions include all asylum applicants (of whatever age), with a distinction between first and repeat applications. In practice, Member States differ in terms of whether the dependants of asylum applicants are included in their asylum data. There are also differences in how repeat applications are accounted for in the statistics. Some differences have been solved by the regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Community statistics on international migration and asylum,[10] adopted on 11 July 2007, and the subsequent implementing measures.

Successful transactions

A “successful transaction” is a transaction which has been correctly processed by the Central Unit, without rejection due to a data validation issue, fingerprint errors or insufficient quality.

[pic]

Annex 1 details the successful transactions per Member State, with a breakdown by category, between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2006.

In 2006, the Central Unit received a total of 270.611 successful transactions, which is an overall increase compared to 2005 (258.684). However, the number of transactions of data of asylum seekers (category 1) decreased by 11% (165.958 compared to 187.223). Such a decrease reflects the general drop of asylum applications in the EU, with a quasi constant percentage of multiple applications (see section 4.3.1).

The number of persons who were apprehended in connection with an irregular border-crossing (category 2) continues to increase significantly: 41.312 in 2006, which is 64% more than in 2005 (25.162) and even more when compared to 2004 (16.183). The same trend goes for the number of persons apprehended when illegally residing on the territory of a Member State (category 3): 63.341 compared to 46.299 in 2005.

[pic]

One can notice that Italy (17.953), Spain (17.595) and Greece (3.984) share the vast majority of irregular entrants, followed by the United Kingdom (546), Malta (418) and the Slovak Republic (411). Surprisingly, 10 Member States (Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxemburg, Portugal and Sweden) did not send any "category 2” transaction.

[pic]

The facility of “category 3” transactions (optional searches for third country nationals apprehended when illegally staying on the territory) is used more each year and some Member States, such as Germany and the Netherlands, use it even very often. As in 2005, only Ireland did not send any such transactions.

“Hits”

Introductory remark : The statistics concerning local hits shown in the table in annex 2 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.

Multiple asylum applications (Annex 4)

From a total of 165.958 asylum applications recorded in EURODAC in 2006, 28.593 applications were 'multiple asylum applications', which means that in 28.593 cases, the same person had already made at least one asylum application before (in the same or in another Member State). In 19.357 cases, asylum authorities were confronted with a second application. In 17 cases, a person applied 10 times for asylum since EURODAC started storing data.

In other words, 17 % of the asylum applications in 2006 were subsequent (i.e. second or more) asylum applications. The percentage of multiple applications has only slightly increased compared to previous years. This should reflect the deterrent effect of the "Dublin system", which allocates the responsibility for examining an asylum application to the Member State where a previous asylum application has been lodged.

“Category 1 against category 1” hits

The table in annex 3.1 shows for each Member State the number of asylum applications which corresponded to asylum applications previously registered in another Member State ("foreign hits") or in the same Member State ("local hits"). It is striking that 38,6% percent of the subsequent applications were lodged in the same Member State where the previous application was lodged. In Cyprus, Greece, Poland and the United Kingdom, even more than half of the subsequent applications were lodged in the same Member State. The table also gives an indication of the secondary movements of asylum seekers in the EU. Apart from the 'logical' routes between neighbouring Member States, such as Germany, Netherlands and Belgium, Norway and Sweden or the United Kingdom and Ireland, one can note that a relatively high number (486) of asylum applicants in France previously lodged their application in Poland, or that the highest amount of foreign hits in Greece (172) were found against data of asylum applicants recorded in the United Kingdom.

“Category 1 against category 2” hits

The table in annex 3.2 gives an indication of routes taken by persons who irregularly entered the territory of the European Union, before applying for asylum. Most hits occur against data sent by Greece and Italy and to a lesser extent, Spain and the Slovak Republic. However, in these four Member States, almost all hits are 'local', which means that persons irregularly entering their territory subsequently apply for asylum in the same country. Taking all Member States into consideration, more than half of the persons apprehended in connection with an irregular border-crossing and who decide to lodge an asylum claim, do so in the same Member State they entered irregularly. This proportion might mean that Member States send 'category 2 transactions' and shortly later 'category 1 transactions', when a person apprehended at the border at the same time applies for asylum. If this hypothesis is confirmed, it must be reminded that such practice should be avoided, because, for the purposes of the application of the Dublin Regulation, an asylum application overrules an irregular entry. It is, therefore, not necessary to send a 'category 2 transaction' in such cases.

The majority of those who entered the EU via Italy and Greece and then travel further, head mainly for the UK, while those entering via Spain most often head for Italy or France.

“Category 3 against category 1” hits

The table in annex 3.3 gives an indication as to where illegal migrants first applied for asylum before travelling to another Member State. It has to be borne in mind, however, that the category 3 transaction is not mandatory and that not all Member States often use the possibility for this check. One can note that, for example, persons apprehended when illegally residing in Germany often had previously claimed asylum in Austria or in France, and that those apprehended when illegally residing in France often had previously claimed asylum in the United Kingdom or in Italy. It is worth noting that the average of "success", i.e. category 3 transactions matching with previous category 1 transactions sent by other Member States, is around 17% for the five Member States with the highest record of such transactions (Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, France and the Czech Republic).

The analysis of the hits between all Member States reveals that over 24% of the persons apprehended when irregularly staying in the territory of a Member State, had applied for asylum before. Around one-third of them were apprehended in the same Member State where they lodged their application. This percentage amounts to 50% in Belgium, Italy, Poland and the Slovak Republic.

Transaction delay

The issue of exaggerated delays between taking fingerprints and sending them to the EURODAC Central Unit, as pointed at in the previous annual reports, is no longer generalised. Some Member States have still encountered important problems in sending their transactions, resulting in too long delays, such as Spain in the last trimester and Greece in the first trimester of 2006. The Commission services must remind Member States that a delayed transmission might result in the incorrect designation of a Member State. Two different scenarios can occur.

First, 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.

Secondly, 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.

These scenarios are not only theoretical: in 2006, the Central Unit detected 47 "missed hits", of which 30 "in favour" of the same Member State, and 89 "wrong hits", half of which against the same Member State. Therefore, the Commission services again 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.

Quality of transactions

[pic]

The average rate in 2006 of rejected transactions for all Member States is 6,03%, which is almost the same as in 2005 (6,12%). Some experienced a much higher (over 15% in FI) rejection rate than others (less than 2% in CZ). Twelve Member States have a rejection rate above average. The rejection rate does not depend on technology or system weaknesses. The causes of this rejection rate are mainly due to the low quality of the fingerprints images submitted by the Member States, to human error or to the wrong configuration of the Member State’s equipment. Commission services urge those Member States to provide specific training of national EURODAC operators, as well to correctly configure their equipment in order to reduce this rejection rate.

Conclusions

In 2006, the EURODAC Central Unit has again given very satisfactory results in terms of speed, output, security and cost-effectiveness. The real impact of the EURODAC system on the efficient application of the Dublin Regulation has been assessed in the report on the overall evaluation of the Dublin system, adopted on 6th June.

As a logical consequence of the overall decrease of asylum applications in the EU in 2006, the amount of 'category 1 transactions' has continued to decrease. On the other hand, 'category 2 transactions' and 'category 3 transactions' have increased. The number of multiple applications tends to stabilise, with only a 1% increase compared to the previous year.

The analysis of the hits between data of irregular entrants and data of asylum applicants reveals that more than half of the persons apprehended in connection with an irregular border-crossing and who decide to lodge an asylum claim, do so in the same Member State they entered irregularly.

It can further be noted that over 24% of the persons apprehended when irregularly staying in the territory of a Member State, applied for asylum before, of which around one-third stayed in the same Member State where they lodged their application.

Concerns remain on the excessive delay for the transmission of data to the EURODAC Central Unit, as well as on the low quality of data sent by some Member States. The Commission services also insist, as in its previous reports, on the proper respect of data protection rules and will help Member States in correctly applying Article 18 of the EURODAC Regulation.

Annexes

Annexes 1 and 2: Successful transactions per Member State

The table in annex 1 shows the amount of transactions which have been sent by each Member State to the EURODAC Central Unit and successfully processed by the Central Unit.

The tables and graphs in annex 2 show, per Member State, the amount of transactions which have been sent per month to the EURODAC Central Unit and successfully processed by the Central Unit.

Successful transaction:

A “successful transaction” is a transaction which has been correctly processed by the Central Unit, without rejection due to a data validation issue, fingerprint errors or insufficient quality.

Types of categories:

- Category 1: data of asylum applications . Fingerprints (full 10 print images) of asylum applicants sent for comparison against fingerprints of other asylum applicants who have previously lodged their application in another Member State. The same data will also be compared against the “category 2” data (see below). These data will be kept for 10 years with the exception of some specific cases foreseen in the Regulation (for instance an individual who obtains the nationality of one of the Member States) in which cases the data of the person concerned will be erased;

- Category 2: data of aliens apprehended in connection with the irregular crossing of an external border and who were not turned back . These data (full 10 print images) are sent for storage only, in order to be compared against data of asylum applicants submitted subsequently to the Central Unit. These data will be kept for two years with the exception that cases are deleted promptly when the individual receives a residence permit, leaves the territory of the Member State or obtains the nationality of one of them;

- Category 3: data relating to aliens found illegally present in a Member State . These data, which are not stored, are searched against the data of asylum applicants stored in the central database. The transmission of this category of data is optional for the Member States.

Annex 3: Distribution of hits

Annex 3.1 .: Category 1 against Category 1

A “category 1 against category 1” hit means that the fingerprints of an asylum seeker have been recognised by the Central Unit as a match against the stored fingerprints of an existing asylum applicant. This hit is ‘local’ when the asylum seeker has already applied for asylum in the same Member State and ‘foreign’ when he/she has already applied for asylum in another Member State.

Annex 3.2.: Category 1 against Category 2

A “category 1 against category 2” hit means that the fingerprints of an asylum seeker match the stored fingerprints of an alien who has illegally crossed the border and who could not be turned back.

Annex 3.3.: Category 3 against Category 1

A “category 3 against category 1” hit means that the fingerprints of an alien found illegally present within a Member State are being recognised by the Central Unit as a match against the stored fingerprints of an asylum seeker.

Annex 4: Multiple asylum applications

Multiple asylum applications: figures which indicate that asylum applicants have already lodged at least one asylum application before (in the same or in another Member State).

ANNEX 1

Successful transactions to the EURODAC Central Unit,

by category and by Member State, in 2006

category 1 | category 2 | category 3 | TOTAL |

AT | 9957 | 223 | 1540 | 11720 |

BE | 10872 | 0 | 683 | 11555 |

CY | 3635 | 0 | 168 | 3803 |

CZ | 2773 | 0 | 4463 | 7236 |

DK | 1105 | 3 | 175 | 1283 |

EE | 7 | 0 | 2 | 9 |

FI | 1753 | 0 | 132 | 1885 |

FR | 27034 | 22 | 7413 | 34469 |

DE | 16977 | 111 | 16295 | 33383 |

GR | 10716 | 3984 | 22 | 14722 |

HU | 1845 | 2 | 29 | 1876 |

IC | 26 | 0 | 2 | 28 |

IE | 3533 | 0 | 0 | 3533 |

IT | 8604 | 17953 | 2096 | 28653 |

LV | 4 | 2 | 11 | 17 |

LT | 97 | 27 | 111 | 235 |

LU | 415 | 0 | 410 | 825 |

MT | 606 | 418 | 327 | 1351 |

NL | 6823 | 3 | 15166 | 21992 |

NO | 4202 | 2 | 4476 | 8680 |

PL | 3929 | 9 | 640 | 4578 |

PT | 116 | 0 | 12 | 128 |

SK | 2363 | 411 | 910 | 3684 |

SI | 445 | 1 | 643 | 1089 |

SP | 4128 | 17595 | 929 | 22652 |

SE | 19226 | 0 | 525 | 19751 |

UK | 24767 | 546 | 6161 | 31474 |

TOTAL | 165958 | 41312 | 63341 | 270611 |

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Distribution of hits: Category1 against Category1

Annex 3.1

[pic]

Distribution of hits: Category1 against Category2

Annex 3.2

[pic]

Distribution of hits: Category3 against Category1

Annex 3.3

[pic]

Multiple Applications

Annex 4

1/01/2006 to 31/12/2006

[pic]

[pic]

[1] OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p.1.

[2] Article 24(1) EURODAC Regulation

[3] See Commission Staff Working Paper - First annual report to the council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit, SEC(2004)557, p.4 and See Commission Staff Working Paper - Second annual report to the council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit, SEC(2005)839, p.3

[4] Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national ("Dublin regulation"), O.J. L50, 25.2.2003

[5] Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in Denmark or any other Member State of the European Union and “Eurodac” for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention, O.J. L66, 8.3.2006

[6] Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway, concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway, O.J. L57, 28.2.2006

[7] COM(2006)754final

[8] COM(2006)753final; See also Commission Staff Working Paper - Second annual report to the council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit, SEC(2005)839, p.4

[9] See Commission Staff Working Paper - First annual report to the council and the European Parliament on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit, SEC (2004)557, p.6.

[10] O.J. L199/23 of 31.7.2007

Table 4: % of rejected transactions

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

AT

BE

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

ES

FI

FR

GR

HU

IE

IC

IT

LV

LT

LU

MT

NL

NO

PL

PT

SK

SI

SE

UK

%