Documents considered by the Committee on 7 November - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


14 EURODAC Annual Report 2011

(34255)

14139/12

COM(12) 533

Commission report on the activities of the EURODAC Central Unit in 2011

Legal base
Document originated21 September 2012
Deposited in Parliament27 September 2012
DepartmentHome Office
Basis of considerationEM of 12 October 2012
Previous Committee ReportNone, but HC 428-xxxvii (2010-12), chapter 28 (12 October 2011) is relevant
Discussion in CouncilNo date set
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

14.1 EURODAC is an EU database which has a Central Unit equipped with an automated fingerprint recognition system. EURODAC forms an important part of the so-called "Dublin system" for determining which Member State is responsible for examining a claim for asylum. It is intended to reduce the risk of multiple claims for asylum being lodged in different Member States or of asylum seekers being shuttled between Member States, without any one taking responsibility for the asylum application.

14.2 EURODAC has been operational since January 2003. Member States are required to transmit to the EURODAC Central Unit fingerprint data of third country (non-EU) nationals aged at least 14 years old:

  • who have applied for asylum on their territory (so-called "Category 1" data); or
  • who have been apprehended in connection with an irregular crossing of their external land, sea or air borders and who have not been turned back (so-called "Category 2" data).

14.3 These data are stored and used as a basis for comparison with data already contained in the Central Unit, or transmitted subsequently, to see if an asylum seeker has previously lodged an asylum claim in one or more other Member States, or has entered EU territory unlawfully.

14.4 Member States may also (but are not required to) ask the Central Unit to check the fingerprint data of any third country national aged at least 14 years old found to be illegally present on their territory against the fingerprint data of asylum applicants already stored in the Central Unit, to see whether the individual concerned has previously lodged a claim for asylum in another Member State. These so-called "Category 3" data must not be stored within the Central Unit.

14.5 The UK participates fully in the Dublin system and is bound by the 2000 Regulation which established EURODAC. That Regulation requires the Commission to produce an annual report on the activities of the Central Unit, including information on the management and performance of EURODAC.[27] The Annual Report for 2010 assessed the performance of the Central Unit as "satisfactory", but revealed a significant dip in the transmission of fingerprint data of third country nationals apprehended in connection with an irregular border crossing which was particularly marked for Greece (falling from 18, 714 in 2009 to 4,486 in 2010) and Italy (down from 7,300 in 2009 to 2,485 in 2010). The Government suggested that the reduced level of data transactions, especially from Greece, was difficult to reconcile with the reported increase in migratory pressure at Greece's external border in 2010, and said that it would raise with the Commission its concerns about possible (and potentially growing) gaps in the data transmitted to EURODAC.[28] We asked the Government to inform us of the Commission's response.

14.6 Since 2008, the Commission has put forward a number of proposals to amend the 2000 Regulation establishing EURODAC which, if adopted, might remedy some of the shortcomings highlighted in its Annual Reports. The most recent, in May 2012, would repeal and replace the 2000 Regulation and includes new provision for designated national law enforcement authorities and Europol to seek access to EURODAC data in order to prevent, detect or investigate a terrorist or other serious criminal offence.[29] The Minister for Immigration (Mark Harper) wrote to inform us on 18 October 2012 that the Government has decided to opt into the draft Regulation "in order to secure continued access to EURODAC for immigration purposes, as it plays an important role in combating abuse of the UK's asylum system." Negotiations on the draft Regulation have not yet concluded and it remains under scrutiny.

The Commission's annual report for 2011 and the Government's observations

14.7 The Commission's report notes that the cost of maintaining and operating the Central Unit in 2011 was substantially lower than in 2009 and 2010,[30] mainly as a result of completing an upgrade of the EURODAC system, and concludes that the Central Unit "provided satisfactory results throughout 2011 in terms of speed, output, security and cost-effectiveness."[31] The Government supports the Commission's overall assessment and welcomes the recent upgrading of EURODAC to increase its capacity and performance.

14.8 The report contains useful information on the quantity and quality of data transactions processed by the Central Unit which help to illustrate emerging trends with regard to the volume of asylum seekers, multiple claims for asylum, the movement of asylum seekers within the EU, and the number of third country nationals apprehended for entering the EU illegally. These trends, and the observations of the Minister for Immigration (Mark Harper) on their significance, are described below.

Successful transactions

14.9 Successful transactions are those which are correctly processed by the Central Unit without being rejected because of poor data quality or fingerprint errors. The report records a 37 % increase in successful transactions, up from 299,459 in 2010 to 412,303 in 2011, which the Commission attributes to the effects of the Arab Spring and an increase in transactions from Malta and Italy exceeding 500%.

Category 1 data — fingerprints of asylum seekers

14.10 The report notes that there was a 28% increase in the transmission of fingerprint data of asylum seekers, compared with 2010. Of a total of 275,857 asylum applications recorded in EURODAC in 2011, 61,819 cases (22.4%) were multiple applications, meaning that a claim for asylum had been submitted more than once in the same Member State (a "local" hit), or in two or more Member States (a "foreign" hit). Data for the UK indicate that more than 50% of multiple applications were local hits, compared with an average of 38.6% across the EU, and that the highest number of foreign hits were for asylum seekers who had previously lodged an asylum claim in Italy (453 in 2011), followed by France (279), Ireland (249) and Belgium (209).

14.11 The report casts a degree of doubt on the reliability of the figures for multiple applications because some Member States continue to take the fingerprints of asylum seekers who have been transferred to them under the Dublin system, even though there is no fresh application for asylum. The Commission notes that its draft EURODAC Regulation will make clear that Dublin transfers should not be registered as new asylum claims.

Category 2 data — fingerprints of illegal border crossers

14.12 The report records a significant increase in the transmission of fingerprint data of third country nationals apprehended in connection with an irregular crossing of an external border, rising by 417% from 11,156 data transactions in 2010 to 57,693 in 2011. Italy was responsible for 88% of these transactions. By contrast, the number of transactions for Greece continued to fall (from 18,714 in 2009 to 4,486 in 2010 and only 530 in 2011).

14.13 The Minister suggests that the large increase may be attributable to the Arab Spring, but he continues to express concern at the reduced level of data transmissions for Greece, which would appear to be at odds with the migratory pressures reported at Greece's external border. He adds:

"We are aware that Greece continues to work to improve its systems through implementation of its National Action Plan on Managed Migration and Asylum Reform. Greece is also receiving assistance to improve its domestic capability from the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and FRONTEX (the Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the EU's External Borders)."[32]

14.14 The Minister confirms that the Government has raised with the Commission the possibility that some data may be missing from the EURODAC system, and has been assured that there is no evidence to suggest that Greece has been failing to fingerprint individuals apprehended at the border. He continues:

"The Commission also noted that as a point of reassurance, FRONTEX is now in place assisting at the Greek external border, ensuring that procedures are correctly followed.

"We note the Commission's explanation. We appreciate that an Annual Report of this nature is better suited to commenting on observed data transactions and trends than to speculating about the possibility of missing data. We also note that FRONTEX reported that in 2011 there were approximately 55,500 detections of illegal border crossings on the Eastern Mediterranean route between Greece and Turkey.[33] EURODAC obligations for illegal border crossers apply only to those who are "not turned back" to a third country, so it does not necessarily follow that all the detected persons would need to have their fingerprints sent to the EURODAC database. However, we also note that the FRONTEX Report remarks that most of the Greek orders to return migrants who had illegally crossed the border with Turkey could not be implemented. On that basis the figures from the FRONTEX Report and this Annual Report are not easily reconciled, however, we appreciate that efforts continue to build capacity in the asylum and border management system."[34]

14.15 The Minister adds:

"Member States cannot use the Dublin Regulation to transfer asylum applicants to Greece following the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of MSS vs. Belgium and Greece (21 January 2011) and the Court of Justice of the European Union in NS and others (21December 2011) and data on illegal border crossers is currently stored for two years, so it is arguable that any impact on the integrity of the database regarding illegal entrants is reduced. The capacity building work in Greece continues and so we look forward to analysis of progress, developments and trends noted in reports such as this one on EURODAC and ones from other sources such as FRONTEX and EASO."[35]

14.16 The report notes that Category 2 data provide an indication of the routes taken by those entering the EU illegally before making a claim for asylum. According to these data, the highest number of illegal entrants to the EU in 2011 could be traced back to Italy (4,268), followed by Greece (1,805). Most of those entering illegally via Italy moved on to Switzerland, Germany, or Sweden. Those entering illegally via Greece mainly went to Germany, the UK, or France to claim asylum. However, the Minister observes that, if there are gaps in the data for individuals entering illegally at the external border, this would affect all the findings in the Report which rely on that dataset.

Category 3 data — illegally resident third country nationals

14.17 Unlike the previous two categories, the transmission of fingerprint data for illegally resident third country nationals, in order to check whether they have previously lodged a claim for asylum elsewhere within the EU, is optional.[36] As a result, the data do not provide a comprehensive overview of movements within the EU/EEA. They suggest, however, that the most popular destination countries are Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Austria and Norway.

Delays in sending fingerprint data to the Central Unit and the quality of transactions

14.18 The report highlights problems caused by delays in transmitting fingerprint data to the Central Unit, which can result in the wrong Member State being identified as responsible for an asylum application. Although delays have decreased in 2011, five Member States (including the UK) exceed the EU average of between 0 and 4 days for the transmission of fingerprint data, with the longest delays in Greece. The average rate of rejected data transactions has also declined from 8.82% in 2010 to 5.87% in 2011, but the rate for the UK remains quite high, at 11.08%. The Commission urges Member States to provide specific training for national EURODAC operators to reduce the rejection rate.

14.19 The Minister agrees with the Commission that transmission delays can affect the efficiency of the Dublin system and should be minimised. He notes that the UK has improved since 2010, with average transmission delays down from seven to 5.5 days, but adds that the delays are often linked to the rejection rate for fingerprint data, usually resulting from the poor quality of fingerprint images. The Minister says that,

"the high quality standards imposed by the EURODAC Central Unit on accepting data for comparison mean that fingerprints that would be of an acceptable standard at national level can fail to meet the EURODAC acceptance test."[37]

14.20 The Minister acknowledges that delays can occur in the transmission of fingerprints from different units of the UK Border Agency that encounter illegal entrants to the Immigration Fingerprint Bureau. He continues:

"Not all of these units have direct electronic access to the hub for the United Kingdom's EURODAC activities in the UK Border Agency's Immigration Fingerprint Bureau. It is sometimes necessary for hard copy prints to be sent elsewhere to be electronically scanned for EURODAC transmission, which can impact on transmission times. The UK Border Agency continues to strive towards minimum transmission times, making best use of available resources. Instructions are issued to remind operational units of the importance of taking prompt action to scan fingerprints for onward transmission to EURODAC."[38]

Conclusion

14.21 As we stated previously, when considering the Annual Report for 2010, the apparent disparity between the volume of "Category 2" fingerprint data being sent to EURODAC by Greece and the increased migratory pressures reported at its external border with Turkey is a cause for concern. We note the Commission's assurance that there is no evidence to suggest that the Greek authorities have not been taking the fingerprints of those apprehended as illegal entrants at its border. Nevertheless, as the Minister suggests, the figures in the EURODAC Annual Report for 2011 and those in the FRONTEX Annual Risk Analysis for 2012 indicating that the number of illegal border crossings detected at the external border in Greece increased steadily in 2011, are difficult to reconcile.

14.22 The Minister briefly describes the efforts underway to support Greece in implementing the reforms contained in its Action Plan on asylum. As the use of the Dublin system to effect the transfer of asylum seekers to Greece has been suspended, pending improvements in the capacity of the Greek authorities to administer an effective asylum procedure, the lack of Category 2 data may not have much immediate operational significance. However, in the longer term, any gaps in the data sent to EURODAC will inevitably undermine the credibility of the Dublin system.

14.23 We accept that the purpose of the Annual Report is to provide statistical data on actual transactions between Member States and the EURODAC Central Unit in 2011, not to speculate on possible omissions or the reasons for them, and for that reason we are content to clear the Report from scrutiny. In so doing, we ask the Minister to be alert to the concerns we have expressed, and to ensure that they are addressed when he submits his Explanatory Memorandum on the next Annual Report for 2012.




27   See Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2725/2000, OJ No. L 316, 15.12.2000, p.1. Back

28   See the head note. Back

29   See (33956); HC 86-vii (2012-13), chapter 3 (4 July 2012) and HC 86-xi (2012-13), chapter 12 (5 September 2012). Back

30   The cost in 2011 just exceeded €1 million, compared with €2.1 million in 2009. Back

31   See para 3, page 10 of the Commission's report. Back

32   See para 20 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back

33   FRONTEX Annual Risk Analysis Report April 2012 Back

34   See paras 21-22 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back

35   See para 23 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back

36   Ireland was the only Member State that chose not to make use of this facility in 2011. Back

37   See para 28 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back

38   See para 29 of the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2012
Prepared 16 November 2012