BETA

241 Amendments of Marina ALBIOL GUZMÁN related to 2016/0224(COD)

Amendment 190 #
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set outRejects the Commission’s proposal and refers the text back to the Commission; urges the Commission to present a new proposal consistent with international legislation and the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a regulation
Title 1
Proposal for a REGULATIONDIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
(1) The objective of this RegulationDirective is to streamline, simplify and harmonise the procedural arrangements of the Member States by establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union. To meet that objective, a number of substantive changes are made to Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 22 and that Directive should be repealed and replaced by a Regulation. References to the repealed Directive should be construed as references to this RegulationDirective. _________________ 22 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (OJ L180, 29.6.2013, p. 60).
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
(3) The Common European Asylum System is based on common standards for asylum procedures, recognition and protection offered at Union level, reception conditions and a system for determining the Member State responsible for asylum seekers. Notwithstanding progress achieved so far in the progressive development of the Common European Asylum System, there are still significant disparities between the Member States in the types of procedures used, the recognition rates, the type of protection granted, the level of material reception conditions and benefits given to applicants and beneficiaries of international protection. These divergences are important drivers of secondary movements and undermine the objective of ensuring that in a Common European Asylum System all applicants are equally treatedtreated with the highest standards and in full compliance with fundamental rights and the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees wherever they apply in the Union.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
(4) In its Communication of 6 April 23 2016, the Commission set out its options for improving the Common European Asylum System, namely to establish a sustainable and fair system for determining the Member State responsible for asylum seekers, to reinforce the Eurodac system, to achieve greater convergence in the EU asylum system, to prevent secondary movements within the Union and a new mandate for the European Union Agency for Asylum. That Communication is line with calls by the European Council on 18-19 February 2016 24 to make progress towards reforming the EU’s existing framework so as to ensure a humane and efficient asylum policy. It also proposes a way forward in line with the holistic approach to migration set out by the European Parliament in its own initiative report of 12 April 2016. _________________ 23 COM(2016) 197 final. 24 EUCO 19.02.2016, SN 1/16.Deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 201 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) A common procedure for granting and withdrawing international protection should limit the secondary movements of applicants for international protection between Member States, where such movements would be caused by differences in legal frameworks, by replacing the current discretionary provisions with harmonised rules and by clarifying the rights and obligations of applicants and the consequences of non- compliance with those obligations, and create equivalent conditions for the application of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) in Member States.26 _________________ 26 THIS FOOTNOTE IS MISSING. THANK YOU FOR USING ANOTHER LANGUAGE.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
(7) This RegulationDirective should apply to all applications for international protection made in the territory of the Member States, including those made at the external border, on the territorial sea or in the transit zones of Member States, and the withdrawal of international protection. Persons seeking international protection who are present on the territorial sea of a Member State should be disembarked on land and have their applications examined in accordance with this RegulationDirective.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
(8) This RegulationDirective should apply to applications for international protection in a procedure where it is examined whether the applicants qualify as beneficiaries of international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation). In addition to the international protection, the Member States may also grant under their national law other national humanitarian statuses to those who do not qualify for the refugee status or subsidiary protection status. In order to streamline the procedures in Member States, the Member States should have the possibility to apply this RegulationDirective also to applications for any kind of such other protection.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 214 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
(9) With respect to the treatment of persons falling within the scope of this RegulationDirective, Member States are bound by obligations under instruments of international law to which they are party.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 218 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
(10) The resources of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund should be mobilised to provide adequate support to Member States' efforts in applying this RegulationDirective, in particular to those Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures on their asylum and reception systems.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
(11) The European Union Agency for Asylum should provide Member State with the necessary operational and technical assistance in the application of this Regulationdirective, in particular by providing experts to assist national authorities to receive, register, and examine applications for international protection and by providing updated information on third countries, including country of origin information and guidance on the situation in specific countries of origin. When applying this RegulationDirective, Member States should take into account operational standards, indicators, guidelines andrespect fundamental rights and take into account best practices developed by the European Union Agency for Asylum.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 226 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) The applicant should be provided with an effective opportunity to present all relevant elements at his or her disposal to the determining authority. For this reason, the applicant should, subject to limited exceptions, enjoy the right to be heard through a personal interview on the admissibility or on merits of his or her application, as appropriate. For the right to a personal interview to be effective, the applicant should be assisted by an interpreter, and a cultural mediator, and be given the opportunity to provide his or explanations concerning the grounds for his or her application in a comprehensive manner. The applicant should be given sufficient time to prepare and consult with his or her legal adviser or counsellor, and he or she may be assisted by the legal adviser or counsellor during the interview. The applicant must have the opportunity to be effectively assisted by NGOs providing legal aid before, during, and after the interview. The personal interview should be conducted under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality and by adequately trained and competent personnel, including where necessary, personnel from authorities of other Member States or experts deployed by the European Union Agency for Asylum from the relevant Member State. The personal interview may only be omitted when the determining authority is to take a positive decision on the application or is of the opinion that the applicant is unfit or unable to be interviewed owing to enduring circumstance beyond his or her control. Given that the personal interview is an essential part of the examination of the application, the audio of the interview should be recorded and the applicants and their legal advisers should be given access to the recording, as well as to the report or transcript of the interview before the determining authority takes a decision, or in the case of an accelerated examination procedure, at the same time as the decision is made. If the applicant is in need of special guarantees in accordance with Article 19 to 22, that applicant must have the opportunity to provide specifications within a reasonable time after a personal interview.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a regulation
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 shall be provided as soon as an applicant has declared the wish to receive international protection and should be provided by persons competent to provide them under national law.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 237 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) Certain applicants may be in need of special procedural guarantees due, inter alia, to their age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex characteristics, disability, serious illness, mental disorders or as a consequence of torture, rape, trafficking, shipwreck, or other serious forms of psychological, physical, sexual or gender- based violence. It is necessary to systematically assess whether an individual applicant is in need of special procedural guarantees and identify those applicants as early as possible from the moment an application is made and before a decision is taken.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) To ensure that the identification of applicants in need of special procedural guarantees takes place as early as possible, NGOs must have full access to detention centres, reception centres, border posts, or any other place where potential asylum- seekers are present; and the personnel of the authorities responsible for receiving and registering applications should be adequately trained to detect signs of vulnerability signs and they should receive appropriate instructions for that purpose. Further measures dealing with identification and documentation of symptoms and signs of torture or other serious acts of physical or psychological violence, including acts of sexual violence, in procedures covered by this RegulationDirective should, inter alia, be based on the Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol).
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) Applicants who are identified as being in need of special procedural guarantees should be provided with adequate support, including sufficient time, in order to create the conditions necessary for their effective access to procedures and for presenting the elements needed to substantiate their application for international protection. Where it is not possible to provide adequate support in the framework of an accelerated examination procedure or a border procedure, an applicant in need of special procedural guarantees should be exempted from those procedures. The need for special procedural guarantees of a nature that could prevent the application of accelerated or border procedures should also mean that the applicant is provided with additional guarantees in cases where his or her appeal does not have automatic suspensive effect, with a view to making the remedy effective in his or her particular circumstancMinors shall always be exempted from border and accelerated procedures.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) With a view to ensuring substantive equality between female and male applicants, examination procedures should be gender-sensitive. In particular, personal interviews should be organised in a way which makes it possible for both female and male applicants to speak about their past experiences in cases involving sexual orientation or gender- based persecution. For this purpose, women should be given an effective opportunity to be interviewed separately from their spouse, partner or other family members. Where possible, women and girls should be provided with female interpreters and interviewers. Medical examinations on women and girls should be carried out by female medical practitioners, in particular having regard to the fact that the applicant may have been a victim of gender-based violence. Where an applicant's gender identity differs from their legal gender, Member States shall ensure in examination and interviews respect for the gender identity of the applicant by using the corresponding name, title, and gender marker. The complexity of gender- related claims, including claims related to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics, should be properly taken into account in procedures based on the concept of first country of asylum, the concept of safe third country, the concept of safe country of origin and in the notion of subsequent applications.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 251 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) Violence that is directed against a person because of that person's gender, gender identity or gender expression, or that affects persons of a particular gender disproportionately is understood as gender-based violence. It may result in physical, sexual, emotional or psychological harm, or economic loss, to the victim. Gender-based violence is understood to be a form of discrimination and violation of fundamental freedoms of the victim and includes violence in close relationships, sexual violence (including rape, sexual assault, and harassment), trafficking in human beings, slavery, and different forms of harmful practices, such as forced marriages, female genital mutilation and so-called 'honour-crimes'. Women victims of gender-based violence and their children often require special support and protection because of the high risk of secondary and repeat victimisation, of intimidation and retaliation connected with such violence.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 254 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) When, in the framework of an application being processed, the applicant is searched, that search should be carried by a person of the same sex. This should be without prejudice to a search carried out, for security reasons, on the basis of national lawan exceptional measure done only when there is a specific justification.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
(20) The best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this RegulationDirective, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter and the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In assessing the best interests of the child, Member States should in particular take due account of the minor’s well-being and social development, including his or her background. In view of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child concerning the child's right to be heard, the determining authority shall provide a minor the opportunity of a personal interview unless this is manifestly not in the minor's best interests.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
(21) The common procedure streamlines the time-limits for an individual to accede to the procedure, for the examination of the application by the determining authority as well as for the examination of first level appeals by judicial authorities. Whereas a disproportionate number of simultaneous applications may risk delaying access to the procedure and the examination of the applications, a measure of flexibility to exceptionally extend those time-lines may at times be needed. However, to ensure an effective process, extending those time- limits should be a measure of last resort considering that Member States should regularly review their needs to maintain an efficient asylum system, including by preparing contingency plans where necessary, and considering that the European Union Agency for Asylum should provide Member States with the necessary operational and technical assistance. Where Member States foresee that they would not be able to meet the set time-limits, they should request assistance from the European Union Agency for Asylum. Where no such request is made, and because of the disproportionate pressure the asylum system in a Member State becomes ineffective to the extent of jeopardising the functioning of Common European Asylum System, the Agency may, based on an implementing decision of the Commission, take measures in support of that Member State.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
(22) Access to the common procedure should be based on a three-step approach consisting of the making, registering and lodging of an application. Making an application is the first step that triggers the application of this RegulationDirective. A third- country national or stateless person is considered to have made an application when expressing a wish to receive international protection from a Member State. Such a wish may be expressed in any form and the individual applicant need not necessarily use specific words such as international protection, asylum or subsidiary protection. The defining element should be the expression by the third county national or the stateless person of a fear of persecution or serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence. In case of doubt whether a certain declaration may be construed as an application for international protection, the third-country national or stateless person should be expressly asked whether he or she wishes to receive international protection. The applicant should benefit from rights under this RegulationDirective and Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive)27 as soon as he or she makes an application. _________________ 27 OJ L […], […], p. […].
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 269 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
(23) An application should be registered as soon as it is made. At this stage, the authorities responsible for receiving and registering applications, including border guards, police, immigration authorities and authorities responsible for detention facilities should register the application together with the personal details of the individual applicant. Those authorities should inform the applicant of his or her rights and obligations, as well as the consequences for the applicant in case of non-compliance with those obligations. The applicant should be given a document certifying that an application has been made, and should be granted access to an interpreter and a legal adviser. The time limit for lodging an application starts to run from the moment an application is registered.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) The applicant should be informed properly of his or her rights and obligations in a timely manner and in a language that he or she understands or is reasonably meant to understand. Having regard to the fact that where, for instance, the applicant refuses to cooperate with the national authorities by not providing the elements necessary for the examination of the application and by not providing his or her fingerprints or facial image, or fails to lodge his or her application within the set time limit, the application could be rejected as abandoned, it is necessary, concise and easily accessible manner, in clear and simple language, and in a language that the applicant be informed of the consequences for not complying with those obligationor she understands.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) To be able to fulfil their obligations under this Regulation,Directive, the NGO or individual providing legal aid will have the right to be present throughout the procedure, and the personnel of the authorities responsible for receiving and registering applications should have appropribe recruited based on qualifications and experience through open procedures, have adequate knowledge and should receive the necessary training in the field of international protection, including with the support of the European Union Agency for Asylum. They should also be given the appropriate means and instructions to effectively perform their tasks in line with fundamental rights.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) In order to facilitate access to the procedure at border crossing points and in detention facilities, NGOs providing legal aid should be given access and information should be made available on the possibility to apply for international protection. Basic communication necessary to enable the competent authorities to understand if persons declare their wish to receive international protection should be ensured through interpretation arrangements. Staff who provide interpretation services should have appropriate knowledge and should have received the necessary training on international protection and human rights guarantees.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 289 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) This RegulationDirective should provide for the possibility that applicants lodge an application on behalf of their spouse, partner in a stable and durable relationship, dependant adults and minors. This option allows for the joint examination of those applications. The right of each individual to seek international protection is guaranteed by the fact that if the applicant does not apply on behalf of the spouse, partner, dependant adult or minor within the set time-limit for lodging an application, the spouse or partner may still do in his or her own name, and the dependant adult or minor should be assisted by the determining authority. However, if a separate application is not justified, it should be considered as inadmissible.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 292 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) To ensure that unaccompanied minors have effective access to the procedure, they should always be appointed a guardian. The guardian should be a person or a representative of an organisation appointed to assist and guide the minor through the procedure with a view to safeguard the best interests of the child as well his or her general well-being. Where necessary, the guardian should exercise legal capacity for the minor. In order to provide effective support to the unaccompanied minors, guardians should not be placed in charge of a disproportionate number of unaccompanied minors at the same time, and in any event that number should not be more than 10. Member States should appoint entities or persons responsible for the support, supervision and monitoring at regular intervals of the guardians in the performance of their tasks in a satisfactory manner. The supervision and monitoring of the guardians by NGOs shall be granted and facilitated. Those entities or persons shall also have the competence to review complaints lodged by unaccompanied minors against their guardians. To this end, unaccompanied minors shall be given information in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language both orally and in a visual form, in a child-friendly manner and in a language they understand, about who these entities or persons are and how to file complaints against their guardians in confidence and safety. An unaccompanied minor should lodge an application in his or her own name or through the guardian. In order to safeguard the rights and procedural guarantees of an unaccompanied minor, the time-limit for him or her to lodge an application should start to run from when his or her guardian is appointed and they meet. Where the guardian does not lodge the application within the set time limit, the unaccompanied minor should be given an opportunity to lodge the application on his or her name with the assistance of the determining authority. The fact that an unaccompanied minor chooses to lodge an application in his or her own name should not preclude him or her from being assigned a guardian.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 296 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) In order to guarantee the rights of the applicants, decisions on all applications for international protection should be taken on the basis of the facts, objectively, impartially and on an individual basis after a thorough examination which takes into account all the elements provided by the applicant and the individual circumstances of the applicant. To ensure a rigorous examination of an application, the determining authority should take into account relevant, accurate and up-to-date information relating to the situation in the country of origin of the applicant obtained from the European Union Agency for Asylum and other sources such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The determining authority should also take into account any relevant common analysis of country of origin information developed by the European Union Agency for AsylumUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Any postponement of concluding the procedure should fully comply with the obligations of the Member States under Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) and with the right to good administration, without prejudice to the efficiency and fairness of the procedure under this RegulationDirective.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 300 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
(31) In order to guarantee the rights of the applicant, a decision concerning his or her application should be given in writing with a translation to a language that he or she understands. Where the decision does not grant international protection, the applicant should be given reasons for the decision and information on the consequences of the decision as well as the manner in which to challenge that decision. Without prejudice to tThe applicant's right to remain and to the principle of non-refoulement, such a decision may include, or may be issued together with, a return decision issued in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.28 _________________ 28 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 staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98) must be respected.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 303 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) Without prejudice to carrying out an adequate and complete examination of an application for international protection, it is in the interests of both Member States and applicants for a decision to be taken as soon as possible. Maximum time-limits for the duration of the administrative procedure as well as for the first level of appeal should be established to streamline the procedure for international protection. In this way, applicants should be able to receive a decision on their application within the least amount of time possible in all Member States thereby ensuring a speedy and efficient procedure. The streamlining of the procedure should in no way have an adverse impact on the in- depth and individual examination of the merits of applications for protection.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 307 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) Before determining the Member State responsible in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council (Dublin Regulation),29 the first Member State in which an application has been lodged should examine the admissibility of that application when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or safe third country for the applicant. In addition, an application should be considered to be inadmissible when it is a subsequent applicant without new relevant elements or findings and when a separate application by a spouse, partner, dependent adult or minor is not considered to be justified. _________________ 29 OJ L […], […], p. […].deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
(36) The concept of first country of asylum should be applied as a ground for inadmissibility where it can reasonably be assumed that another country would grant protection in accordance with the substantive standards of the Geneva Convention or the applicant would be provided sufficient protection in that country. In particular, the Member States should not examine the merits of an application where a first country of asylum has granted the applicant refugee status or otherwise sufficient protection. Member States should proceed on that basis only where they are satisfied including, where necessary or appropriate, based on assurances obtained from the third country concerned, that the applicant has enjoyed and will continue to enjoy protection in that country in accordance with the Geneva Convention or has otherwise enjoyed and will continue to enjoy sufficient protection, particularly as regards the right of legal residence, appropriate access to the labour market, reception facilities, healthcare and education, and the right to family reunification in accordance with international human rights standards.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 316 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
(37) The concept of safe third country should be applied as a ground for inadmissibility where the applicant, due to a connection to the third country including one through which he or she has transited, can reasonably be expected to seek protection in that country, and there are grounds for considering that the applicant will be admitted or readmitted to that country. Member States should proceed on that basis only where they are satisfied including, where necessary or appropriate, based on assurances obtained from the third country concerned, that the applicant will have the possibility to receive protection in accordance with the substantive standards of the Geneva Convention or will enjoy sufficient protection, particularly as regards the right of legal residence, appropriate access to the labour market, reception facilities, healthcare and education, and the right to family reunification in accordance with international human rights standards.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 322 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
(38) An application for international protection should be examined on its merits to determine whether an applicant qualifies for international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation). There need not be an examination on the merits where an application should be declared as inadmissible in accordance with this Regulation. However, where from a prima facie assessment it is clear that an application may be rejected as manifestly unfounded, the application may be rejected on that ground without examining its admissibility.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
(39) The examination of an application should be accelerated and completed within a maximum of two months in those instances where an application is manifestly unfounded because it is an abusive claim, including where an applicant comes from a safe country of origin or an applicant is making an application merely to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a removal decision, or where there are serious national security or public concerns, where the applicant does not apply for international protection in the first Member State of entry or in the Member State of legal residence or where an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document is taken back under the Dublin Regulation. In the latter case, the examination of the application should not be accelerated if the applicant is able to provide substantiated justifications for having left to another Member State without authorisation, for having made an application in another Member State or for having otherwise been unavailable to the competent authorities, such as for instance that he or she was not informed adequately and in a timely manner of his or her obligations. Furthermore, an accelerated examination procedure may be applied to unaccompanied minors only within the limited circumstances set out in this Regulation.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 333 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
(40) Many applications for international protection are made at the border or in a transit zone of a Member State prior to a decision on the entry of the ap. In complicant. Member States should be able to provide for an examination on admissibility or an examination on the merits which would make it possible for such applications to be decided upon at those locations in well- defined circumstances. The border procedure should not take longer than four weeks and after that periodce with the principle of non- refoulement, upon a claim to ask for international protection, the applicants shouldall be allowed entry to the territory of the Member State. It is only where a disproportionate number of applicants lodge their applications at the borders or in a transit zone, that the border procedure may be applied at locations in proximity to the border or transit zone. A border procedure may be applied to unaccompanied minors only within the limited circumstances set out in this Regulation and apply for asylum on the territory of the Member State, receiving sufficient resources to guarantee a decent living.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 339 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41
(41) The notion of public order may, inter alia, cover a conviction of having committed a serious crime.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 343 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
(42) As long as an applicant can show good cause, tThe lack of documents on entry or the use of forged documents should not per se entail an automatic recourse to an accelerated examination procedure or a border procedure.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 347 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
(43) Where an applicant either explicitly withdraws his or her application of his or her own motion, or does not comply with the obligations arising from this Regulation, Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation) or Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive) thereby implicitly withdraws his or her application, the application should not be further examined and it should be rejected as explicitly withdrawn or abandoned, and any application in the Member States by the same applicant further after that decision should be considered to be a subsequent application. However, the implicit withdrawal should not be automatic but the applicant should be allowed the opportunity to report to the determining authority and demonstrate that the failure to comply with those obligations was due to circumstances beyond his control the application should not be further examined and it should be rejected as explicitly withdrawn.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 350 #
Proposal for a regulation
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. 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.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 355 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44 a (new)
(44a) Given the individual nature of the right to asylum as described in international legislation, including the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, asylum applications must be individually analysed independently from the country of origin of the applicant. Therefore, the concept of safe country of origin cannot be applied.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 356 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
(45) A key consideration as to whether an application for international protection is well-founded is the safety of the applicant in his or her country of origin. Having regard to the fact that Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) aims to achieve a high level of convergence on the qualification of third-country nationals and stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, this Regulation establishes common criteria for designating third countries as safe countries of origin and, in view of the need to strengthen the application of the safe country of origin concept as an essential tool to support the swift processing of applications that are likely to be unfounded, this Regulation sets out an EU common list of safe countries of origin.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 365 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
(47) As regards the designation of safe third countries at Union level, this Regulation provides for having such a designation. Third countries should be designated as safe third countries at Union level by means of an amendment to this Regulation based on the conditions set out in this Regulation and after carrying out a detailed evidence-based assessment involving substantive research and broad consultation with Member States and relevant stakeholders.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 371 #
Proposal for a regulation
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. 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. 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.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 382 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
(49) The Commission, assisted by the European Union Agency for Asylum, should regularly review the situation in third countries designated as safe third countries at Union level or that are on the EU common list of safe countries of origin. In case of sudden change for the worse in the situation of such a third country, the Commission should be able to suspend the designation of that third country as safe third country at Union level or the presence of that third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin for a limited period of time by means of a delegated act in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Moreover, in this case, the Commission should propose an amendment for the third country not to be designated as a safe third country at Union level any longer or to remove that third country from the EU common list of safe country of origin within 3 months of the adoption of delegated act suspending the third country.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 386 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
(50) For the purpose of this substantiated assessment, the Commission should take into consideration a range of sources of information at its disposal including in particular, its Annual Progress Reports for third countries designated as candidate countries by the European Council, regular reports from the European External Action Service and the information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and other relevant international governmental and non- governmental organisations. The Commission should be able to extend the suspension of the designation of a third country as a safe third country at Union level or the presence of a third country from the EU common list of safe country of origin for a period of six months, with a possibility to renew that extension once. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 388 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
(51) When the period of validity of the delegated act and its extensions expires, without a new delegated act being adopted, the designation of the third country as safe third country at Union level or from the EU common list of safe countries of origin should no longer be suspended. This shall be without prejudice to any proposed amendment for the removal of the third country from the lists.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 390 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
(52) The Commission, with the assistance of the European Union Agency for Asylum, should regularly review the situation in third countries that have been removed from the EU common list of safe countries of origin or safe third countries, including where a Member State notifies the Commission that it considers, based on a substantiated assessment, that, following changes in the situation of that third country, it fulfils again the conditions set out in this Regulation for being designated as safe. In such a case, Member States could only designate that third country as a safe country of origin or a safe third country at the national level as long as the Commission does not raise objections to that designation. Where the Commission considers that these conditions are fulfilled, it may propose an amendment to the designation of safe third countries at Union level or to the EU common list of safe countries of origin so as to add the third country.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 396 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 53
(53) As regards safe countries of origin, following the conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 20 July 2015, at which Member States agreed that priority should be given to an assessment by all Member States of the safety of the Western Balkans, the European Union Agency for Asylum organised an expert-level meeting with the Member States on 2 September 2015, where a broad consensus was reached that Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*,30 the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia should be considered as safe countries of origin within the meaning of this Regulation. _________________ 30 * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/99 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 399 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
(54) Based on a range of sources of information, including in particular reporting from the European External Action Service and information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and other relevant international organisations, a number of third countries are considered to qualify as safe countries of origin.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 402 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 55
(55) As regards Albania, the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights found violations in four out of 150 applications. There are no indications of any incidents of expulsion, removal or extradition of own citizens to third countries where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another third country. In 2014, Member States considered that 7,8 % (1040) of asylum applications of citizens from Albania were well-founded. At least eight Member States have designated Albania as a safe country of origin. Albania has been designated as a candidate country by the European Council. At the time of designation, the assessment was that Albania fulfilled the criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council of 21-22 June 1993 relating to the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities and Albania will have to continue to fulfil those criteria, for becoming a member in line with the recommendations provided in the Annual Progress Report.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 405 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 56
(56) As regards Bosnia and Herzegovina, its Constitution provides the basis for the sharing of powers between the country's constituent peoples. The legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti- discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights found violations in five out of 1196 applications. There are no indications of any incidents of expulsion, removal or extradition of own citizens to third countries where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another third country. In 2014, Member States considered that 4,6 % (330) of asylum applications of citizens from Bosnia and Herzegovina were well- founded. At least nine Member States have designated Bosnia and Herzegovina as a safe country of origin.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 407 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 57
(57) As regards the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by principle substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights found violations in six out of 502 applications. There are no indications of any incidents of expulsion, removal or extradition of own citizens to third countries where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another third country. In 2014, Member States considered that 0,9 % (70) of asylum applications of citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were well-founded. At least seven Member States have designated the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as a safe country of origin. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been designated as a candidate country by the European Council. At the time of designation, the assessment was that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia fulfilled the criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council of 21-22 June 1993 relating to the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will have to continue to fulfil those criteria, for becoming a member in line with the recommendations provided in the Annual Progress Report.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 410 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 58
(58) As regards Kosovo*, the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation. The non-accession of Kosovo* to relevant international human rights instruments such as the ECHR results from the lack of international consensus regarding its status as a sovereign State. There are no indications of any incidents of expulsion, removal or extradition of own citizens to third countries where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another third country. In 2014, Member States considered that 6,3 % (830) of asylum applications of citizens of Kosovo* were well-founded. At least six Member States have designated Kosovo* as a safe country of origin.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 59
(59) This RegulationDirective is without prejudice to Member States' position on the status of Kosovo, which will be decided in accordance with their national practice and international law. In addition, none of the terms, wording or definitions used in this RegulationDirective constitute recognition of Kosovo by the Union as an independent State nor does it constitute recognition by individual Member States of Kosovo in that capacity where they have not taken such a step. In particular, the use of the term "countries" does not imply recognition of statehood.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 417 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
(60) As regards Montenegro, the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights found violations in one out of 447 applications. There are no indications of any incidents of expulsion, removal or extradition of own citizens to third countries where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another third country. In 2014, Member States considered that 3,0 % (40) of asylum applications of citizens of Montenegro were well-founded. At least nine Member States have designated Montenegro as a safe country of origin. Montenegro has been designated as a candidate country by the European Council and negotiations have been opened. At the time of designation, the assessment was that Montenegro fulfilled the criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council of 21-22 June 1993 relating to the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. Montenegro will have to continue to fulfil those criteria, for becoming a member in line with the recommendations provided in the Annual Progress Report.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 420 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
(61) As regards Serbia, the Constitution provides the basis for self-governance of minority groups in the areas of education, use of language, information and culture. The legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti- discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights found violations in 16 out of 11 490 applications. There are no indications of any incidents of expulsion, removal or extradition of own citizens to third countries where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another third country. In 2014, Member States considered that 1,8 % (400) of asylum applications of citizens from Serbia were well- founded. At least nine Member States have designated Serbia as a safe country of origin. Serbia has been designated as a candidate country by the European Council and negotiations have been opened. At the time of designation, the assessment was that Serbia fulfilled the criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council of 21-22 June 1993 relating to the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. Serbia will have to continue to fulfil those criteria, for becoming a member in line with the recommendations provided in the Annual Progress Report.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 422 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 62
(62) As regards Turkey, the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights found violations in 94 out of 2 899 applications. There are no indications of any incidents of expulsion, removal or extradition of own citizens to third countries where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another third country. In 2014, Member States considered that 23,1 % (310) of asylum applications of citizens of Turkey were well-founded. One Member State has designated Turkey as a safe country of origin. Turkey has been designated as a candidate country by the European Council and negotiations have been opened. At the time, the assessment was that Turkey sufficiently meets fulfilled the political criteria established by the Copenhagen European Council of 21-22 June 1993 relating to stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, and Turkey will have to continue to fulfil those criteria, for becoming a member in line with the recommendations provided in the Annual Progress Report.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 426 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 63
(63) With respect to the withdrawal of refugee or subsidiary protection status, and in particular in view of the regular status review to be carried out on the basis of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation), Member States should ensure that persons benefiting from international protection are duly informed of a possible reconsideration of their status and that they are given the opportunity to submit their point of view, within a reasonable time, by means of a written statement and in a personal interview, before the authorities can take a reasoned decision to withdraw their status. The principle of non-refoulement should always be respected.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 432 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
(65) For an applicant to be able to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy, he or she should be allowed to remain on the territory of a Member State until the time-limit for lodging a first level of appeal expires, and when such a right is exercised within the set time-limit, pending the outcome of the remedy. It is only in limited cases set out in this Regulation that the suspensive effect of an appeal is not automatic and where the applicant would need to request the court or tribunal to stay the execution of a return decision or the court would act of its own motion to this effect. Where an exception is made to the right to a remedy with automatic suspensive effect, the applicant's rights of defence should be adequately guaranteed by providing him or her with the necessary interpretation and legal assistance, as well as by allowing sufficient time for the applicant to prepare and submit his or her request to the court or tribunal. Furthermore, in this framework, the court or tribunal should be able to examine the decision refusing to grant international protection in terms of fact and law. The applicant should be allowed to remain on the territory pending the outcome of the procedure to rule on whether or not he or she may remain. However, that decision should be taken within one month.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 436 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 67
(67) In accordance with Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, this RegulationDirective does not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 438 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 68
(68) Regulation (EU) No 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) 31 applies to the processing of personal data by the Member States carried out in application of this RegulationDirective. _________________ 31 OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 439 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 69
(69) Any processing of personal by the European Union Agency for Asylum within the framework of this RegulationDirective should be conducted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council,32 as well as Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (EU Asylum Agency Regulation) 33 and it should, in particular, respect the principles of necessity and proportionality. _________________ 32 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1). 33OJ L […], […], p. […]. 33 OJ L […], […], p. […].
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 440 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 70
(70) Any personal data collected upon registration or lodging of an application for international protection and during the personal interview should be considered to be part of the applicant's file and it should be kept for a number of years since third- country nationals or stateless persons who request international protection in one Member State may try to request international protection in another Member State or may submit further subsequent applications in the same or another Member State for years to come. Given that most third-country nationals or stateless persons who have stayed in the Union for several years will have obtained a settled status or even citizenship of a Member State after a period of ten years from when they are granted international protection, that period should be considered a necessary period for the storage of personal details, including fingerprints and facial imagesmaximum of two years after the final decision.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 71
(71) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this RegulationDirective, in particular as regards the provision of information, documents to the applicants and measures concerning applicants in need of special procedural guarantees including minors, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council34 of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers. _________________ 34 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 72
(72) In order to address sudden changes for the worse in a third country designated as a safe third country at Union level or included in the EU common list of safe countries of origin, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of suspending the designation of that third country as safe third country at Union level or the presence of that third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin for a period of six months where the Commission considers, on the basis of a substantiated assessment, that the conditions set by this RegulationDirective are no longer met. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter- institutional Agreement on Better Law- Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 450 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 73
(73) This RegulationDirective does not deal with procedures between Member States governed by Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation).
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 452 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 74
(74) This RegulationDirective should apply to applicants to whom Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation) applies, in addition and without prejudice to the provisions of that Regulation.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75
(75) The application of this RegulationDirective should be evaluated at regular intervals by relevant institutions, including the European Parliament.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 457 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 76
(76) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to establish a common procedure for granting and withdrawing international protection, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Regulation, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 459 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77 – paragraph 1
[In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this RegulationDirective]
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 461 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77 – paragraph 3
[In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this RegulationDirective and are not bound by it or subject to its application.]
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 463 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77 – paragraph 5
[(XX) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this RegulationDirective and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 465 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77 – paragraph 6
(XX) In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland has notified (, by letter of ...,) its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this RegulationDirective.]
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 467 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77 – paragraph 8
[(XX) In accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the United Kingdom has notified (, by letter of ...,) its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this RegulationDirective.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 469 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 77 – paragraph 9
(XX) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of this RegulationDirective and is not bound by it or subject to its application.]
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 471 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 78
(78) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this RegulationDirective and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 474 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 79
(79) This RegulationDirective respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this RegulationDirective seeks to ensure full respect for human dignity and to promote the application of Articles 1, 4, 8, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 47 of the Charter.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 475 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1
This RegulationDirective establishes a common procedure for granting and withdrawing international protection referred to in Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation).
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 479 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This RegulationDirective applies to all applications for international protection made in the territory of the Member States, including at the external border, in the territorial sea or in the transit zones of the Member States, and to the withdrawal of international protection.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 482 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This RegulationDirective does not apply to applications for international protection and to requests for diplomatic or territorial asylum submitted to representations of Member States.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 483 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Member States may decide to apply this RegulationDirective to applications for protection to which Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) does not apply.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 486 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purposes of this RegulationDirective, the following definitions referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) apply:
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) 'applicant in need of special procedural guarantees' means an applicant whose ability to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations provided for in this RegulationDirective is limited due to individual circumstances;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 505 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) 'final decision' means a decision on whether or not a third-country national or stateless person is granted refugee status or subsidiary protection status by virtue of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation), including a decision rejecting the application as inadmissible or a decision rejecting an application as explicitly withdrawn or abandoned and which can no longer be subject to an appeal procedure in the Member State concerned;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 508 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) 'determining authority' means any quasi-judicial or administrative body in a Member State responsible for examining applications for international protection competent to take decisions at first instance;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 513 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) 'guardian' means a person or an organisation appointed to assist and represent an unaccompanied minor with a view to safeguarding the best interests of the child and his or her general well-being in procedures provided for in this RegulationDirective and exercising legal capacity for the minor where necessary;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 520 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point i
(i) 'subsequent application' means a further application for international protection made in anythe Member State concerned after a final decision has been taken on aand based on the same elements that have already been evaluated in the previous application including cases where the application has been rejected as explicitly withdrawn or as abandoned following its implicit withdrawal; ;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 526 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Each Member State shall provide the determining authority with appropriate means, including sufficient competent personnel to carry out its tasks in accordance with this RegulationDirective. For that purpose, each Member State shall regularly assess the needs of the determining authority to ensure that it is always in a position to deal with applications for international protection in an effective manner, particularly when receiving a disproportionate number of simultaneous applications.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 528 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The following authorities shall have the task of receiving and registering applications for international protection as well as informing applicants as to where and how to lodge an application for international protection.Under no circumstances shall these authorities have the power to decide on the merits of an application for international protection:
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 536 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) police;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 539 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Member States may entrust also other authorities with those tasks.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 553 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5
5. Member States shall ensure that the personnel of the determining authority, or of any other authority responsible for receiving and registering applications for international protection in accordance with paragraph 3, have the appropriate knowledge and are provided with the necessary training and instructions to fulfil their obligations when applying this RegulationDirective. This training must include, but not be limited to, specialized training on identifying victims of violence due to sexual orientation or of gender-based violence, as well as victims of trafficking and torture. Member States will also ensure the presence of interpreters, cultural mediators, and the access of NGOs providing legal aid throughout the process.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 561 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. The authorities applying this RegulationDirective shall safeguard the confidentiality of any information they obtain in the course of their work.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 562 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) obtain any information from the alleged actors of persecution or serious harm in a manner that would result in such actors being directly informed of the fact that an application has been made by the applicant in question, and would jeopardise the physical integrity of the applicant or his or her dependants, or the liberty and security of his or her family members still living in the country of origin.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 574 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) providing fingerprints and facial image as referred to in Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Eurodac Regulation).35 _________________ 35deleted OJ L […], […], p. […].
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 580 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) hand over documents, or their copies, in his or her possession relevant to the examination of the application.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 583 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Where an applicant refuses to cooperate by not providing the details necessaryreferred to in this Directive for the examination of the application and by not providing his or her fingerprints and facial image, and the responsible authorities have properly informed that person of his or her obligations and the consequences deriving from those obligations and has ensured that that person has had an effective opportunity to comply with those obligations, his or her application shawill be rejected as abandoned in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 39. suspended until the necessary information is provided. Any use of force in collecting the information shall be prohibited and penalized.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 588 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. The applicant shall inform the determiningrelevant authority of the Member State in which he or she is required to be present of his or her place of residence or address or a telephone numbertelephone number or e-mail address where he or she may be reached by the determiningrelevant authority or other responsible authorities. He or she shall notify that determining authority of any changes. The applicant shall accept any communication at the most recent place of residence or address which he or she indicated accordingly, in particular when he or she lodges an application in accordance with Article 28.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 600 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7
7. Where it is necessary for the examination of an application, the applicant may be required by the responsible authorities to be searched or have his or her items searched. Without prejudice to any search carried out forThe responsible authorities must use search as a final resource and give the applicant a specurityific reasons, a for the search in writing. A search of the applicant's person under this RegulationDirective shall be carried out by a person of the same sex with full respect for the principles of human dignity and of physical and psychological integrity.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 609 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The determiningresponsible authority shall inform applicants, in a language which they understand or are reasona, in a concise and easily accessiblye meant to understandner, using clear and simple language, of the following:
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 615 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) their rights and obligations during the procedure, including the obligation to remain in the territory of the Member State in which they are required to be presentright to be reunited with family members present in another Member State in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation);
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 621 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point h a (new)
(h a) the right to receive free legal counsel and to contact relevant NGOs.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 624 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
The information referred to in the first paragraph shall be given in good timeat the point at which the application for international protection is registered, and in any event prior to the personal interview, to enable the applicants to exercise the rights guaranteed in this RegulationDirective and for them to adequately comply with the obligations set out in Article 7.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 627 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The determining authority shall provide applicants with the services of an interpreter for submitting their case to the determining authority as well as to courts or tribunals whenever appropriate communication cannot be ensured without such services. The interpretation services shall be paid for from public funds. This shall also be done when applicants are in detention centers or at border crossing points.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 635 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. The determining authority shall provide applicants with the opportunity to communicate with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or with any other organisation providing legal advice or other counselling to applicants, in accordance with national lawforming them about the different governmental and non-governmental organizations and ensuring they can be contacted by them.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 644 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. The determining authority shall givenotify applicants notice within a reasonable timewithin five working days of the decision taken on their application. Where a guardian, legal adviser or other counsellor is legally representing the applicant, the determining authority mayshall give notice of the decision to him or her instead ofas well as to the applicant.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 654 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The right to remain shall not constitute an entitlement to a residence permit in order to make the application effective, and it shall not give the applicant the right to travel to the territory of other Member States without authorisatias long as referred to in Article 6 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive)he or she can be contacted by a telephone number or e- mail address.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 656 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. The responsible authorities of Member States may revoke the applicant's right to remain on their territory during administrative procedure where: (a) a person makes a subsequent application in accordance with Article 42 and in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 43; (b) a person is surrendered or extradited, as appropriate, to another Member State pursuant to obligations in accordance with a European arrest warrant 36 or to a third country or to international criminal courts or tribunals. _________________ 36Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 663 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. A Member State may extradite an applicant to a third country pursuant to paragraph 3(b) only where the determining authority is satisfied that an extradition decision will not result in direct or indirect refoulement in breach of the international and Union obligations of that Member State.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 667 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10
1. Before a decision is taken by the determining authority on the admissibility of an application for international protection, the applicant shall be given the opportunity of an interview on the admissibility of his or her application. 2. In the admissibility interview, the applicant shall be given an opportunity to provide adequate reasons as to why the admissibility grounds provided for in Article 36(1) would not be applicable to his or her particular circumstances.Article 10 deleted Admissibility interview
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 677 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. In the substantive interview, the applicant shall be given an adequathe opportunity to present the elements needed to substantiate his or her application in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation), and he or she shall provide all the elements at his or her disposal as completely as possible. The applicant shall be given the opportunity to provide an explanation regarding elements which may be missing or any inconsistencies or contradictions in the applicant’s statements.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 680 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. A person who conducts the substantive interview of an application shall not wear a military or law enforcement uniform. The presence of interpreters and legal advisors must be guaranteed.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 684 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. The applicant shall be given an opportunity of a personal interview on his or her application in accordance with the conditions established in this RegulationDirective.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 689 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. Personal interviews shall be conducted by the personnel of the determining authority, which may be assisted by the personnel of authorities of other Member States referred to in Article 5(4)(a) or experts deployed by the European Union Agency for Asylum referred to in Article 5(4)(b).The determining authority will ensure the presence of interpreters, and cultural mediators when necessary and of legal advisors.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 693 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. Where simultaneous applications for international protection by a disproportionate number of third-country nationals or stateless persons make it difficult in practice for the determining authority to conduct timely personal interviews of each applicant, the determining authority may be assisted by the personnel of authorities of other Member States referred to in Article 5(4)(a) and experts deployed by the European Union Agency for Asylum referred to in Article 5(4)(b), to conduct such interviews.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 699 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
6. The person conducting the interview shall be competent to take account of the personal and general circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant’s cultural origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and vulnerability, gender expression, sex characteristics, and vulnerability, as well as the situation in his or her country of origin. Personnel interviewing applicants shall also have acquired general knowledge of problems which could adversely affect the applicant's ability to be interviewed, such as being the survivor of a shipwreck or indications that the person may have been tortured in the past or be a victim of trafficking or of any other form of sexual orientation and gender-based violence.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 704 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1
An interpreter who is able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person conducting the interview shall be provided for the personal interview. Interpreters shall be competent to adequately translate statements related to personal and general circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant's cultural origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex characteristics and vulnerability, avoiding incorrect, stereotypical and derogatory expressions.The communication shall take place in the language preferred by the applicant unless there is another language which he or she understands and in which he or she is able to communicate clearly.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 708 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 8 – subparagraph 2
Where requested by the applicant, tThe determining authority shall ensure that the interviewers and interpreters are of the same sex as the applicant provided that this is possible and. Both the determining authority does not have reasons to believe that such a request is based on grounds which are not related to difficuland the interpreters shall have already received specific training on international law regarding asylum, as well as on identifying victiems onf the part of the applicant to present the grounds of his or her application in a comprehensive mannerrafficking, torture, victims of violence due to sexual orientation and gender-based violence.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 709 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 9
9. The absence of a personal interview shall not prevent the determining authority from taking a decision on an application for international protection.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 713 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The determining authority or any other authority or experts assisting it or conducting the personal interview shall make a thorough and factual report containing all substantive elements or a transcript of every personal interview. A copy of the report will be given to the applicant.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 718 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The personal interview shall be recorded using audio or audio-visual means of recording. The applicant shall be informed in advance of such recording and the use that will be made of it.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 719 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall be given the 3. opportunity to make comments or provide clarification orally or in writing with regard to any incorrect translations or misunderstandings appearing in the report or in the transcript, at the end of the personal interview or within a specified time limit before the determining authority takes a decision. To that end, the applicant shall be informed of the entire content of the report or of the substantive elements of the transcript, with the assistance of an interpreter, where necessary. The applicant shall then be requested to confirm that the content of the report or the transcript correctly reflects the personal and after having received a copy of the report, translated into a language he or she understands, and having received legal counsel. The applicant shall then be requested to confirm that the content of the report or the transcript correctly reflects the personal interview, and shall be given the opportunity to add elements or correct it, and to check that the additions and/or corrections have been made to the report of the interview.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 725 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6
6. Where the application is examined in accordance with the accdelerated examination procedure, the determining authority may grant access to the report or the transcript of the recording at the same time as the decision is made.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 732 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7
7. The responsible authorities shall store either the recording or the transcript for tenwo years from the date of athe final decision. The recording shall be erased upon expiry of that period or where it is related to a person who has acquired citizenship of any Member State before expiry of that period as soon as the Member State becomes aware that the person concerned has acquired such citizenship.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 738 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to the applicant's right to choose his or her own legal adviser or other counsellor at his or her own cost, an applicant may request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure in accordance with Articles 15 to 17. The applicant shall be informed of his or her right to request free legal assistance and representation at all stages of the procedure, and as soon as the wish to receive international protection has been declared.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 742 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall, 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, as soon as possible after the wish to obtain international protection has been expressed and, in any event, within two days of that declaration.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 753 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) assistance in the preparation of the application and personal interview, including and participation in the personal interview as necessary;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 755 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 3
3. The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure may be excluded where: (a) the applicant has sufficient resources; (b) the application is considered as not having any tangible prospect of success; (c) the application is a subsequent application.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 761 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
The provision of free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure may be excluded where: (a) the applicant has sufficient resources; (b) the appeal is considered as not having any tangible prospect of success; (c) the appeal or review is at a second level of appeal or higher as provided for under national law, including re-hearings or reviews of appeal.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 768 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Where a decision not to grant free legal assistance and representation is taken by an authority which is not a court or tribunal on ground that the appeal is considered as having no tangible prospect of success, the applicant shall have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against that decision, and for that purpose he or she shall be entitled to request free legal assistance and representation.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 773 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The determining authority may deny access to the information in the applicant's file where the disclosure of information or sources would jeopardise national security, the security of the organisations or persons providing the information or the security of the persons to whom the information relates or where the investigative interests relating to the examination of applications for international protection by the competent authorities of the Member States or the international relations of the Member States would be compromised. In those cases, the determining authority shall: (a) make access to such information or sources available to the courts or tribunals in the appeal procedure; and (b) ensure that the applicant’s right of defence is respected.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 782 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 6
6. Without prejudice to Article 22(5), tThe absence of a legal adviser or other counsellor shall not prevent the determining authority from conducting a personal interview with the applicant, unless the applicant is informed of his or her right to receive legal counsel and rejects it.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 785 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall lay down specific procedural rules concerning the modalities for filing and processing requests for the provision of free legal assistance and representation in relation to applications for international protection or they shall apply the existing rules for domestic claims of a similar nature, provided that those rules do not render access to free legal assistance and representation impossible or excessively difficult. The applicant shall always be informed about these rules.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 787 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may also impose monetary limits or time limits on the provision of free legal assistance and representation, provided that such limits do not arbitrarily restrict access to free legal assistance and representation. As regards fees and other costs, the treatment of applicants shall not be less favourable than the treatment generally given to their nationals in matters pertaining to legal assistance.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 790 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may request total or partial reimbursement of any costs made if and when the applicant’s financial situation considerably improves or where the decision to make such costs was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the applicant.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 797 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – title
The role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and relevant NGOs
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 798 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and relevant NGOs:
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 808 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
2. Where applicants have been identified as applicants in need of special procedural guarantees, they shall be provided with adequate support allowing them to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations under this RegulationDirective throughout the duration of the procedure for international protection, including making an interpreter, a cultural mediator, and a legal adviser available to them.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 834 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for Member States when applying this RegulationDirective.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 851 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The responsible authorities shall, as soon as possible and not later than fivetwo working days from the moment when an unaccompanied minor makes an application, appoint a person or an organisation as a guardian.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 858 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. The determining authority shall inform the guardian and the minor of all relevant facts, procedural steps and time- limits pertaining to the unaccompanied minor.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 859 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) represent and assist the unaccompanied minor during the procedures provided for in this RegulationDirective and
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 860 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) enable the unaccompanied minor to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations under this RegulationDirective.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 868 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
The responsible authorities shall not place a guardian in charge of a disproportionate number of unaccompanied minors, and in any event no more than 10, at the same time, which would render him or her unable to perform his or her tasks effectively.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 874 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – title
Medical and psychological examination
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 875 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. Where the determining authority deems it relevant for the assessment of an application for international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation), and subject to the applicant’s consent, it shall arrange for a medThe applicant can consent to undergo medical and psychological examinations of the applicant concerning signs and symptoms that mightwhich could indicate past persecution ors, serious harminjuries suffered, inhuman treatment.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 878 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2
2. The medical and psychological examination shall be carried out by qualified medical professionals. Member States may designate the medical professionals who may carry out such medical examinations. Those medical examinations shall be paid for from public funds.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 880 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3
3. When no medical examination is carried out in accordance with paragraph 1, the determining authority shall inform applicants that they may, on their own initiative and at their own cost, arrange for a medical examination concerning signs and symptoms that might indicate past persecution or serious harm.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 881 #
4. The results of the medical examination shall be submitted to the determining authority and to the applicant as soon as possible and shall be assessed by the determining authority along with the other elements of the application.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 882 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5
5. An applicant's refusal to undergo a mMedical examinations shall nobe used as a last preventsource and the determining authority from taking a decision on the application for international protectshall inform in writing about the reason for the decision.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 883 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – title
Medical and psychosocial examination of unaccompanied minors
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 887 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. Medical examinations may be usedWhere, following statements by the applicant or with documentary evidence available, there are doubts as to dwhethermine the age of or not an unaccompanied minors within the framework of the examination of an application where, following statements by the applicant is under the age of 18, the determining authorities may order a psychosocial assessment to be carried out by qualified professionals to determine the applicant's age within the framework of ther relevant indications including a psychosocial assessment, ther examination of an application. The arge doubts as to whether or not the applicant is under the age of 18evaluation must not be based solely on the applicant's physical appearance or behaviour. Where the result of the medical examinationpsychosocial assessment is not conclusive, or includes an age-range below 18 years, Member States shall assume that the applicant is a minor.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 900 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. Any medical examination shall be performed with full respect for the individual’s dignity, shall be the least invasive examination and shall be carried out by qualified medical professionals allowing for the most reliable result possible, specifying in writing the margin of error of the method used. Medical examination shall always be used as a last resource, and the determining authority shall explain in writing the reasons for it. If a medical examination has been performed, all documents relating to the medical examination shall be included in the applicant's file.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 903 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4
4. Where medical examinations are used to determine the age of unaccompanied minors, the determining authority shall ensure that unaccompanied minors are informed, prior to the examination of their application for international protection, and in a language that they understand or are reasonably meant to understand, of the possibility that their age be determined by medical examination. This shall include information on the method of examination and possible consequences which the result of the medical examination may have for the examination of the application, as well as on the possibility and consequences of a refusal on the part of the unaccompanied minor, or of his or her guardian, to undergo the medical examinationUnaccompanied minors have the right to an effective remedy against a decision determining their age.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 911 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 5
5. The refusal by the unaccompanied minors or their guardians to carry out the medical examination may only be considered as a rebuttable presumption that the applicant is not a minor and it shall not prevent the determining authority from taking a decision on the application for international protection.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 917 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 6
6. A Member State shall recognise age assessment decisions taken by other Member States on the basis of a medical examination carried out in accordance with this Article and based on methods which are recognised under its national law.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 926 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) inform the applicants in a language they can understand of their rights and obligations set out, in particular, in Articles 27, 28 and 31 as regards the registration and lodging of applications, Article 7 as regards the obligations of applicants and consequences of non- compliance with such obligations, Article 9 as regards the right of applicants to remain on the territory of the Member State responsible, and Article 8 as regards the general guarantees for applicants;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 931 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the name, date of birth, gender, nationality and other personal details of the applicant, including, where relevant, the gender identity of the applicant;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 945 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 4
4. The responsible authorities shall store each set of data referred to in paragraph 1 and any other relevant data collected under paragraph 2, for tenwo years from the date of a final decision. The data shall be erased upon expiry of that period or where it is related to a person who has acquired citizenship of any Member State before expiry of that period as soon as the Member State becomes aware that the person concerned has acquired such citizenship.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 947 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1
1. The applicant shall lodge the application within twenty working days from the date when the application is registered provided that he or she is given an effective opportunity to do so within that time-limit., including access to translators and interpreters, and legal counsel.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 960 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The authority responsible for receiving and registering applications for international protection shall inform the applicant that after the decision is taken on the application he or she may bring forward only new elements which are relevant for the examination of his or her application and which he or she could not have been aware of at an earlier stage or which relate to changes to his or her situation.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 964 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5
5. The applications for international protection shall be lodged in person and at a designated place. The applicant will be able to lodge the application accompanied by an interpreter and/or a legal advisor. For that purpose, when the application is registered, the applicant shall be given an appointment with the authorities competent for the lodging of the application.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 969 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 6
6. The responsible authorities shall store the data referred to in paragraph 4 for tenwo years from the date of a final decision. The data shall be erased upon expiry of that period or where it is related to a person who has acquired citizenship of any Member State before expiry of that period as soon as the Member State becomes aware that the person concerned has acquired such citizenship.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 971 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. The authorities of the Member State where an application for international protection is made shall, upon registration, provide the applicant with a document certifying, in particular, that an application has been made and stating that the applicant may remain on the territory of that Member State for the purposes of lodging his or her application as provided for in this RegulationDirective.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 979 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) stating that the applicant has the right to remain on the territory of that Member State and indicating whether the applicant is free to move within all or part of the territory of that Member State;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 980 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) stating that the document is not a valid travel document and indicating that the applicant is not allowed tocan travel without authorisation to the territory of other Member States as long as he or she can be contacted until the procedure for the determination of the Member State responsible for the examination of the application in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation) has taken place;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 982 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
(f a) Where the data referred to in 27(1)(a) includes an applicant's gender identity that differs from their legal gender, the document shall mention the name, gender marker, and other gendered data corresponding to the gender identity of the applicant.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 991 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
The period of validity indicated on the document does not constitutes a right to remain where that right was terminated or suspended.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 994 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where there are indications, including information from NGOs, that third-country nationals or stateless persons held in detention facilities or present at border crossing points, including transit zones, at external borders, may need international protection, the responsible authorities shall inform them of thand provide possibility to apply for international protection, in particular, where:
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1012 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Member States may impose limits to such access where, by virtue of national law, they are necessary for the security, public order or administrative management of a border crossing point or of a detention facility, provided that access is not severely restricted or rendered impossible.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1037 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
3. Where an applicant does not lodge an application on behalf of his or her spouse or partner as referred to in paragraph 1 within the twenty working days referred to in Article 28(1), the spouse or partner shall be given an opportunity to lodge his or her application in his or her own name within another twenty working- day period starting from the expiry of the first ten working-day period. Where the spouse or partner still does not lodge his or her application within these further tenwenty working -days, the application shall be rejected as abandoned in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 39 period.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1045 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4
4. Where an applicant does not lodge an application on behalf of his or her dependent adult as referred to in paragraph 1 within the twenty working days referred to in Article 28(1), the determining authority shall lodge an application on behalf of that dependent adult if, on the basis of an individual assessment of his or her personal situation, it is of the opinion thfacts indicate the dependent adult may need international protection.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1060 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 9
9. Where the adult responsible for the accompanied minor does not lodge an application on behalf of the minor within the twenty working days provided for in Article 28(1), the minor shall be informed of the possibility to lodge his or her application in his or her own name and given an opportunity to do so within a further twenty working-day period starting from the expiry of the first twenty working- day period if he or she has the legal capacity to act in procedures according to the national law of the Member State concerned. Where the minor does not lodge his or her application in his or her own name within these further twenty working days, the application shall be rejected as abandoned in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 39uthority with responsibility under Article 5 shall lodge an application on behalf of the minor.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1068 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 2
Where there are facts relating to the situation of the spouse, partner or minor which justify a separate application, that separate application shall be further examined to take a decision on its merits. If not, that separate application shall be rejected as inadmissible, without prejudice to the proper examination of any application lodged on behalf of the spouse, partner or minor.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1077 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. In the case of an unaccompanied minor, the twenty working-day period for the lodging the application provided for in Article 28(1) shall only start to run from the moment a guardian of the unaccompanied minor is appointed and has met with him or her. Where his or her guardian does not lodge an application on behalf of the unaccompanied minor within those twenty working days, the determining authority shall lodge an application on behalf of the unaccompanied minor if, on the basis of an individual assessment of his or her personal situation, it is of the opinion that the minor may need international protection.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1080 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2
2. The determining authority shall take decisions on applications for international protection after an appropriate examination as to the admissibility or merits of an application. The determining authority shall examine applications objectively, impartially and on an individual basis. For the purpose of examining the application, it shall take the following into account: (a) the relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant including information on whether the applicant has been or may be subject to persecution or serious harm; (b) all relevant, accurate and up-to-date information relating to the situation prevailing in the country of origin of the applicant at the time of taking a decision on the application, including laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied, as well as any other relevant information obtained from the European Union Agency for Asylum, from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and relevant international human rights organisations, or from other sources; (c) the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (EU Asylum Agency Regulation); (d) the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant, including factors such as background, gender, age, sexual orientation and gender identity so as to assess whether, on the basis of the applicant's personal circumstances, the acts to which the applicant has been or could be exposed would amount to persecution or serious harm; (e) whether the activities that the applicant was engaged in since leaving the country of origin were carried out by the applicant for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for applying for international protection, so as to assess whether those activities would expose the applicant to persecution or serious harm if returned to that country; (f) whether the applicant could reasonably be expected to avail himself or herself of the protection of another country where he or she could assert citizenship.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1100 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the application is likely to be well- founded;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1121 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 5
5. The determining authority may postpone concluding the examination procedure where it cannot reasonably be expected to decide within the time-limits laid down in paragraph 2 and in Article 40(4) as regards the accelerated examination procedure due to an uncertain situation in the country of origin which is expected to be temporary. In such cases, the determining authority shall: (a) conduct reviews of the situation in that country of origin at least every two months; (b) inform the applicants concerned within a reasonable time of the reasons for the postponement. The Member State shall inform the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum within a reasonable time of the postponement of procedures for that country of origin. In any event, the determining authority shall conclude the examination procedure within 15 months from the lodging of an application.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1131 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 1
1. A decision on an application for international protection shall be given in writing and it shall be notified to the applicant without undue delay in a language he or she understands or is reasonably meant to understand.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1132 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2
2. Where an application is rejected as inadmissible, as unfounded with regard to refugee status or subsidiary protection status, as explicitly withdrawn or as abandoned, the reasons in fact and in law shall be stated in the decision. Information on how to challenge a decision refusing to grant international protection shall be given in writing, unless otherwise already provided to the applicant.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1136 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 3
3. In cases of applications on behalf of spouses, partners, minors or dependent adults without legal capacity, and whenever the application is based on the same grounds, the determining authority may take a single decision, covering all applicants, unless to do so would lead to the disclosure of particular circumstances of an applicant which could jeopardise his or her interests, in particular in cases involving gender, sexual orientation, gender identitygender-based violence, trafficking, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, sex characteristics, or age-based persecution. In such cases, a separate decision shall be issued to the person concerned.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1141 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36
Decision on the admissibility of the 1. The determining authority shall assess the admissibility of an application, in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees provided for in Chapter II, and shall reject an application as inadmissible where any of the following grounds applies: (a) a country which is not a Member State is considered to be a first country of asylum for the applicant pursuant to Article 44, unless it is clear that the applicant will not be admitted or readmitted to that country; (b) a country which is not a Member State is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant pursuant to Article 45, unless it is clear that the applicant will not be admitted or readmitted to that country; (c) the application is a subsequent application, where no new relevant elements or findings relating to the examination of whether the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) or relating to the inadmissibility ground previously applied, have arisen or have been presented by the applicant; (d) a spouse or partner or accompanied minor lodges an application after he or she had consented to have an application lodged on his or her behalf, and there are no facts relating to the situation of the spouse, partner or minor which justify a separate application. 2. An application shall not be examined on its merits in the cases where an application is not examined in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation), including when another Member State has granted international protection to the applicant, or where an application is rejected as inadmissible in accordance with paragraph 1. 3. Paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to a beneficiary of subsidiary protection who has been resettled under an expedited procedure in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Resettlement Regulation).37 4. Where after examining an application in accordance with Article 3(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation), the first Member State in which the application is lodged considers it to be admissible, the provision of paragraph 1(a) and (b) need not be applied again by the Member State responsible. 5. Where the determining authority prima facie considers that an application may be rejected as manifestly unfounded, it shall not be obliged to pronounce itself on the admissibility of the application. _________________ 37 OJ L […], […], p. […].Article 36 deleted application
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1168 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2
2. The determining authority shall reject an application as unfounded where it has established that the applicant does not qualify for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation). The applicant has the right to an effective remedy and shall be able to challenge this decision in court.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1171 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. The determining authority shall declare an unfounded application to be manifestly unfounded in the cases referred to in Article 40(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1175 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39
[...]deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1222 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The determining authority shall, in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees provided for in Chapter II, accelerate the examination on the merits of an application for international protection, i when the cases where:applicant is determined to be in a situation of vulnerability in which he or she needs to receive international protection in the shortest possible time.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1226 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the applicant, in submitting his or her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant to the examination of whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation);deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1229 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the applicant has made clearly inconsistent and contradictory, clearly false or obviously improbable representations which contradict sufficiently verified country of origin information, thus making his or her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to whether he or she qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation);deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1231 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) 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;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1235 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the applicant is making an application merely to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision resulting in his or her removal from the territory of a Member State;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1239 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) a third country may be considered as a safe country of origin for the applicant within the meaning of this Regulation;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1242 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member States;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1250 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) the applicant does not comply with the obligations set out in Article 4(1) and Article 20(3) of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation), unless he or she demonstrates that his or her failure was due to circumstances beyond his or her control;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1255 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) the application is a subsequent application, where the application is so clearly without substance or abusive that it has no tangible prospect of success.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1259 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 2
2. The determining authority shall conclude the accelerated examination procedure within two months from the lodging of the application. By way of exception, in the cases set out in paragraph (1)(d), the determining authority shall conclude the accelerated examination procedure within eight working days.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1268 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. The accelerated examination procedure may be applied to unaccompanied minors only where:n the unaccompanied minor is determined to be in a situation of vulnerability in which he or she needs to receive international protection in the shortest possible time.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1271 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the applicant comes from a third country considered to be a safe country of origin in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 47;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1273 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) the applicant may for serious reasons be considered to be a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security or public order under national law.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41
[...]deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1289 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3
3. Where a final decision is not taken within four weeks referred to in paragraph 2, the applicant shall no longer be kept at the border or transit zones and shall be granted entry to the territory of the Member State for his or her application to be processed in accordance with the other provisions of this RegulationDirective.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1319 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1
1. After a previous application had been rejected by means of a final decision, any further application made by the same applicant in any Member State shall be considered to be a subsequent applicationequally examined by the Member State responsible.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1320 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2
2. A subsequent application shall be subject to a preliminary examination in which the determining authority shall establish whether relevant new elements or findings have arisen or have been presented by the applicant which significantly increase the likelihood of the applicant qualifying as a beneficiary of international protection by virtue of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) or which relate to the reasons for which the previous application was rejected as inadmissible.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1323 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
3. The preliminary examination shall be carried out on the basis of written submissions and a personal interview in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees provided for in Chapter II. 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.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1327 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) relevant new elements or findings as referred to in paragraph 2(a) have arisen or have been presented by the applicant;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1330 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 5
5. Where the conditions for initiating a new procedure as set out in paragraph 4 are not met, the determining authority shall reject the application as inadmissible, or as manifestly unfounded where the application is so clearly without substance or abusive that it has no tangible prospect of success.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1338 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Without prejudice toTaking into account the principle of non- refoulement, Member States may provide an exception fromust guarantee the right to remain on their territory and derogate from Article 54(1), where:during subsequent applications.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1339 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a subsequent application has been rejected by the determining authority as inadmissible or manifestly unfounddeleted;
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1344 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a second or further subsequent application is made in any Member State following a final decision rejecting a previous subsequent application as inadmissible, unfounded or manifestly unfounded.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1348 #
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 3 – section 5
[...]deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1349 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44
[...]deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1390 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45
[...]deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1437 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46
Designation of safe third countries at 1. Third countries shall be designated as safe third countries at Union level, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 45(1). 2. The Commission shall regularly review the situation in third countries that are designated as safe third countries at Union level, with the assistance of the European Union Agency for Asylum and based on the other sources of information referred to in the second paragraph of Article 45(1). 3. The Commission shall be empowered to adoptArticle 46 delegated acts to suspend the designation of a third country as a safe third country at Union level subject to the conditions as set out in Article 49.Union level
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1441 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47
[...]deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1453 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48
Designation of safe countries of origin at 1. Third countries listed in Annex 1 to this Regulation are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 47. 2. The Commission shall regularly review the situation in third countries that are on the EU common list of safe countries of origin, with the assistance of the Union Agency for Asylum and based on the other sources of information referred to in Article 45(2). 3. In accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (EU Asylum Agency Regulation), the Commission may request the Union Agency for Asylum to provide it with information on specific third countries which could be considered for inclusion in the common EU list of safe countries of origin. 4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts to suspend the presence of a third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin subject to the conditions as set out in Article 49.Article 48 deleted Union level
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1466 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1
1. In case of sudden changes in the situation of a third country which is designated as a safe third country at Union level or which is on the EU common list of safe countries of origin, the Commission shall conduct a substantiated assessment of the fulfilment by that country of the conditions set in Article 45 or Article 47 and, if the Commission considers that those conditions are no longer met, it shall adopt a delegated act suspending the designation of a third country as a safe third country at Union level or suspending the presence of a third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin for a period of six months.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1471 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 3
3. Where the Commission has adopted a delegated act in accordance with paragraph 1 suspending the designation of a third country as a safe third country at Union level or suspending the presence of a third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin, it shall within three months after the date of adoption of that delegated act submit a proposal, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, for amending this RegulationDirective to remove that third country from the designation of safe third countries at Union level or from the EU common list of safe countries of origin.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1473 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 4
4. Where such a proposal is not submitted by the Commission within three months from the adoption of the delegated act as referred to in paragraph 2, the delegated act suspending the third country from its designation as a safe third country at Union level or suspending the presence of the third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin shall cease to have effect. Where such a proposal is submitted by the Commission within three months, the Commission shall be empowered, on the basis of a substantial assessment, to extend the validity of that delegated act for a period of six months, with a possibility to renew this extension once.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1477 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50
Designation of third countries as safe third countries or safe country of origin at 1. For a period of five years from entry into force of this Regulation, Member States may retain or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of safe third countries or safe countries of origin other than those designated at Union level or which are on the EU common list in Annex 1 for the purposes of examining applications for international protection. 2. Where a third country is suspended from being designated as a safe third country at Union level or the presence of a third country has been suspended from the EU common list in Annex 1 to this Regulation pursuant to Article 49(1), Member States shall not designate that country as a safe third country or a safe third country of origin at national level nor shall they apply the safe third country concept on an ad hoc basis in relation to a specific applicant. 3. Where a third country is no longer designated as a safe third country at Union level or a third country has been removed from the EU common list in Annexe I to the Regulation in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, a Member State may notify the Commission that it considers that, following changes in the situation of that country, it again fulfils the conditions set out in Article 45(1) and Article 47. The notification shall include a substantiated assessment of the fulfilment by that country of the conditions set out in Article 45(1) and Article 47 including an explanation of the specific changes in the situation of the third country, which make the country fulfil those conditions again. The notifying Member State may only designate that third country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at national level provided that the Commission does not object to that designation. 4. Member States shall notify the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum of the third countries that are designated as safe third countries or safe countries of origin at national level immediately after such designation. Member States shall inform the Commission and the Agency once a year of the other safe third countries to which the concept is applied on an ad hoc basis in relation to specific applicants.Article 50 deleted national level
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1502 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 51
Withdrawal of international protection The determining authority shall start the examination to withdraw international protection from a particular person when new elements or findings arise indicating that there are reasons to reconsider the validity of his or her international protection, and in particular in those instances referred to in Articles 15 and 21 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation).Article 51 deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1506 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 52
[...]deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1517 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3
3. An effective remedy within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, including, where applicable, an examination of the international protection needs pursuant to Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation). The applicant may only bring forward new elements which are relevant for the examination of his or her application and which he or she could not have been aware of at an earlier stage or which relate to changes to his or her situation.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1525 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) within one weeka month in the case of a decision rejecting a subsequentn application as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded;in the case of a decision rejecting an application as withdrawn, or in the case of a decision rejecting an application in relation to refugee or subsidiarity protection status.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1528 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) within two weeks 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 in the case of a decision rejecting an application as unfounded or manifestly unfounded in relation to refugee or subsidiary protection status following an accelerated examination procedure or border procedure or while the applicant is held in detention;deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1535 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) within one month in the case of a decision rejecting an application as unfounded in relation to the refugee or subsidiary protection status if the examination is not accelerated or in the case of a decision withdrawing international protection.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1541 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
For the purposes of point (ba), Member States may provide for an ex officio review of decisions taken pursuant to a border procedure.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1542 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
The time-limits provided for in this paragraph shall start to run from the date when the decision of the determining authority is notified to the applicant or from the moment the legal adviser or counsellor is appointed if the applicant has introduced a request for free legal assistance and representation. If the applicant has requested free legal assistance and representation in accordance with Article 15, the time-limits shall start to run from the date on which the legal adviser or counsellor is appointed.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1546 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 2
2. A court or tribunal shall have the power to rule whether or not the applicant may remain on the territory of the Member State responsible, either upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio, where the applicant's right to remain in the Member State is terminated as a consequence of any of the following categories of decisions: (a) a decision which considers an application to be manifestly unfounded or rejects the application as unfounded in relation to refugee or subsidiary protection status in the cases subject to an accelerated examination procedure or border procedure; (b) a decision which rejects an application as inadmissible pursuant to Article 36(1)(a) and (c); (c) a decision which rejects an application as explicitly withdrawn or abandoned in accordance with Article 38 or Article 39, respectively.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1555 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3
3. A court or tribunal shall have the power to rule whether or not the applicant may remain on the territory of the Member State responsible provided that: (a) the applicant has the necessary interpretation, legal assistance and sufficient time to prepare the request and submit to the court or tribunal the arguments in favour of granting him or her the right to remain on the territory pending the outcome of the remedy; and (b) in the framework of the examination of a request to remain on the territory of the Member State responsible, the court or tribunal examines the decision refusing to grant international protection in terms of fact and law.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1561 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall allow the applicant to remain on their territory pending the outcome of the procedure to rule on whether or not the applicant may remain on the territory. That decision shall be taken within one month from the lodging of the appeal.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1563 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5
5. An applicant who lodges a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision shall not have a right to remain on the territory of the Member State unless a court or tribunal decides otherwise upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio. That decision shall be taken within one month from the lodging of that further appeal.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1576 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1
This RegulationDirective does not affect the possibility for public authorities to challenge the administrative or judicial decisions as provided for in national legislation.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1578 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 59 – paragraph 2
2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this RegulationDirective. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1581 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1
By [twoone years from entry into force of this RegulationDirective] and every fivetwo years thereafter, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this RegulationDirective in the Member States and shall, where appropriate, propose any amendments.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1582 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 60 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The European Parliament, the Fundamental Rights Agency, and the European Ombudswoman shall write reports in the same time frame evaluating the system and the situation of fundamental rights under it.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1587 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 2
References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this RegulationDirective and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex 2.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1589 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 1
This RegulationDirective shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1591 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 2
This RegulationDirective shall start to apply from [six months from its entry into force].
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1593 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 62 – paragraph 3
This RegulationDirective shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 1594 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I
EU common list of safe countries of origin referred to in Article 48 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo*39 , Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey. _________________ 39 * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/99 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.deleted
2017/06/26
Committee: LIBE