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 originated | 21 September 2012
|
Deposited in Parliament | 27 September 2012
|
Department | Home Office
|
Basis of consideration | EM of 12 October 2012
|
Previous Committee Report | None, but HC 428-xxxvii (2010-12), chapter 28 (12 October 2011) is relevant
|
Discussion in Council | No date set
|
Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
Committee's decision | Cleared
|
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
|