11 Amendments of Maria GRAPINI related to 2016/0224(COD)
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) It is in the interests of both Member States and applicants to ensure a correct recognition of international protection needs already at the stage of the administrative procedure by providing good quality information and legal support which leads to more efficient and better quality decision-making. For that purpose, access to legal assistance and representation should be an integral part of the common procedure for international protection. In order to ensure the effective protection of the applicant's rights, particularly the right of defence and the principle of fairness, and to ensure the economy of the procedure, applicants should, upon their request and subject to conditions set out in this Regulation, be provided with free legal assistance and representation during the administrative procedure and in the appeal procedure. The free legal assistance and representation should be provided by persons competent to provide them under national law. Consideration should be given to granting Member States a certain flexibility as regards their procedural autonomy and the need to avoid placing on them excessive financial burdens.
Amendment 354 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) Where an applicant makes a subsequent application without presenting new evidence or findings which significantly increase his or her likelihood of qualifying as a beneficiary of international protection or which relate to the reasons for which the previous application was rejected as inadmissible, that subsequent application should not be subject to a new full examination procedure. There is also a need to forestall repeated submissions of new applications in other Member States, without new elements or information being provided, so as to prevent abuses of the procedure. In those cases, following a preliminary examination, applications should be dismissed as inadmissible or as manifestly unfounded where the application is so clearly without substance or abusive that it has no tangible prospect of success, in accordance with the res judicata principle. The preliminary examination shall be carried out on the basis of written submissions and a personal interview however the personal interview may be dispensed with in those instances where, from the written submissions, it is clear that the application does not give rise to relevant new elements or findings or that it is clearly without substance and has no tangible prospect of success. In case of subsequent applications, exceptions may be made to the individual's right to remain on the territory of a Member State after a subsequent application is rejected as inadmissible or unfounded, or in the case of a second or further subsequent applications, as soon as an application is made in any Member States following a final decision which had rejected a previous subsequent application as inadmissible, unfounded or manifestly unfounded.
Amendment 375 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) The establishment of an EU common list of safe countries of origin and an EU common list for safe third countries should address some of the existing divergences between Member States’ national lists of safe countries and support the rapid processing of requests. While Member States should retain the right to apply or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of third countries other than those designated as safe third countries at Union level or appearing on the EU common list as safe countries of origin, the establishment of such common designation or list should ensure that the concept is applied by all Member States in a uniform manner in relation to applicants whose countries of origin are on the common list or who have a connection with a safe third country. This should facilitate convergence in the application of procedures and thereby also deter secondary movements of applicants for international protection. This EU mechanism needs to co-exist on a transitional basis with the national lists. For that reason, the possibility of using national lists or designations should come to an end within a period of five years from entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 581 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Where an applicant refuses to cooperate by not providing the details necessary for the examination of the application and by not providing his or her fingerprints and facial image, or misleads the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision, and the responsible authorities have properly informed that person of his or her obligations and has ensured that that person has had an effective opportunity to comply with those obligations, his or her application shall be rejected as abandoned in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 39.
Amendment 746 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay, at the request of the applicant, provide free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure provided for in Chapter III and in the appeal procedure provided for in Chapter V.
Amendment 838 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The determining authority shall provide a minor the opportunity of a personal interview under conditions suitable to him or her, including where an application is made on his or her own behalf in accordance with Article 31(6) and Article 32(1), unless this is manifestly not in the best interests of the child. In that case, the determining authority shall give reasons for the decision not to provide a minor with the opportunity of a personal interview.
Amendment 1199 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision;
Amendment 1566 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination of an appeal, the courts or tribunals shall decide on the first level of appeal within the followinga reasonable timelimits from when the appeal is lodged:
Amendment 1569 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) within six months in the case of a decision rejecting the application as unfounded in relation to refugee or subsidiary protection status if the examination is not accelerated or in the case of a decision withdrawing international protection;
Amendment 1571 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) within two months in the case of a decision rejecting an application as inadmissible or in the case of a decision rejecting an application as explicitly withdrawn or as abandoned or as unfounded or manifestly unfounded in relation to refugee or subsidiary protection status following an accelerated examination procedure or a border procedure or while the applicant is held in detention;
Amendment 1572 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 55 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) within one month in the case of a decision rejecting a subsequent application as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.