[ParlTrack]

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) In order to ensure that beneficiaries of international protection who entered the territory of another Member State than the Member State responsible without fulfilling the conditions of stay in that other Member State are taken back by the Member State responsible, it is necessary to encompass beneficiaries of international protection in the scope of this Regulation.deleted

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the minor sibling or siblings of the applicant. Reuniting siblings is of particular importance for improving the chances of integration of applicants and hence reducing secondary movements. The scope of the definition of family member should also reflect the reality of current migratory trends, according to which applicants often arrive to the territory of the Member States after a prolonged period of time in transit. The definition should therefore include families formed outside the country of origin, but before their arrival on the territory of the Member State. This limited and targeted enlargement of the scope of the definition is expected to reduce the incentive for some secondary movements of asylum seekers within the EU.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) In order to ensure full respect for the principle of family unity and for the best interests of the child, the existence of a relationship of dependency between an applicant and his or her child, sibling or parent on account of the applicant’s pregnancy or maternity, state of health or old age, should become a binding responsibility criterion. When the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of another Member State who can take care of him or her should also become a binding responsibility criterion. In order to discourage secondary movements of unaccompanied minors, which are not in their best interests, in the absence of a family member or a relative, the Member State responsible should be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection, unless it is demonstrated that this would not be in the best interests of the child. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to another Member State, the transferring Member State should make sure that that Member State will take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure the adequate protection of the child, and in particular the prompt appointment of a representative or representatives tasked with safeguarding respect for all the rights to which they are entitled. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor should be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests by staff with the necessary qualifications and expertise.deleted

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) Assuming responsibility by a Member State for examining an application lodged with it in cases when such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation may undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of the system and should be exceptional. Therefore, a Member State should be able to derogate from the responsibility criteria only on humanitarian grounds, in particular for family reasons, before a Member State responsible has been determined and examine an application for international protection lodged with it or with another Member State, even if such examination is not its responsibility under the binding criteria laid down in this Regulation.deleted

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) In order to guarantee effective protection of the rights of the persons concerned, legal safeguards and the right to an effective remedy in respect of decisions regarding transfers to the Member State responsible should be established, in accordance, in particular, with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. An effective remedy should also be provided in situations when no transfer decision is taken but the applicant claims that another Member State is responsible on the basis that he has a family member or, for unaccompanied minors, a relative in another Member State. In order to ensure that international law is respected, an effective remedy against such decisions should cover both the examination of the application of this Regulation and of the legal and factual situation in the Member State to which the applicant is transferred. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to an assessment of whether applicants' fundamental rights to respect of family life, the rights of the child, or the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment risk to be infringed upon.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32

(32) A key based on the size of the population and of the economy of the Member States should be applied as a point of reference in the operation of the corrective allocation mechanism in conjunction with a threshold, so as to enable the mechanism to function as a means of assisting Member States under disproportionate pressure. The application of the corrective allocation for the benefit of a Member State should be triggered automatically where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 1500 % of the figure identified in the reference key. In order to comprehensively reflect the efforts of each Member State, the number of persons effectively resettled to that Member State should be added to the number of applications for international protection for the purposes of this calculation.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) When the allocation mechanism applies, the applicants who lodged their applications in the ~~benefitting~~ Member State of entry should be allocated to Member States which are below their share of applications on the basis of the reference key as applied to those Member States. Appropriate rules should be provided for in cases where an applicant may for serious reasons be considered a danger to national security or public order, especially rules as regards the exchange of information between competent asylum authorities of Member States. After the transfer, the Member State of allocation should determine the Member State responsible, and should become responsible for examining the application, unless the overriding responsible criteria, related in particular to the presence of family members, determine that a different Member State should be responsiblIn the above case, the applicant should not be granted asylum and should be sent back so as not to transfer the problem to another Member State.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35

(35) A Member State of allocation may decide not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months- period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system, fully justified, and notify the other Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. Thereafter the applicants that would have been allocated to that Member State should be allocated to the other Member States instead. The Member State which temporarily does not take part in the corrective allocation should make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per applicant not accepted to the Member State that was determined as responsible for examining those applications. After the elapse of the above period, the Member State of allocation is obliged to accept the asylum seekers on its territory. The Commission should lay down the practical modalities for the implementation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in an implementing act. The European Union Agency for Asylum will monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52

(52) In order to assess whether the corrective allocation mechanism in this Regulation is meeting the objective of ensuring a fair sharing of responsibility between Member States and of relieving disproportionate pressure on certain Member States, the Commission should, at the request of a Member State, review the functioning of the corrective allocation mechanism and in particular verify that the threshold for the triggering and cessation of the corrective allocation effectively ensures a fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States and a swift access of applicants to procedures for granting international protection in situations when a Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is responsible under this Regulation.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point ζ – introductory part

(g) ‘family members’ means, insofar as the family already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States ,- which must have been established previously - the following members of the applicant’s family who are present on the territory of the Member States:

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point ζ – indent 5

– the minor sibling or siblings of the applicant;

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. The Member State in which the applicant is obliged to be present shall continue the procedures for determining the Member State responsible even when the applicant leaves the territory of that Member State without authorisation or is otherwise not available for the competent authorities of that Member State.deleted

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point δ

~~(d) the views of the minor, in accordance with his or her age and maturity.~~deleted

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph νέο5 – subparagraph 1

For the purpose of applying Article 10, the ~~Member State where the unaccompanied minor lodged an application for international protection~~European Union organisation for asylum shall, as soon as possible, take appropriate action to identify the family members or relatives of the unaccompanied minor on the territory of Member States, whilst protecting the best interests of the child.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph νέο5 – subparagraph 2

~~To that end, that Member State may call for the assistance of international or other relevant organisations, and may facilitate the minor’s access to the tracing services of such organisations.~~deleted

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

2. The Member State responsible shall be that where a family member of the unaccompanied minor is legally present, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor. Where the applicant is a married minor whose spouse is not legally present on the territory of the Member States, the Member State responsible shall be the Member State where the father, mother or other adult responsible for the minor, whether by law or by the practice of that Member State, or sibling is legally present.(Does not affect the English version.)

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4

4. Where family members or relatives as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, stay in more than one Member State, the Member State responsible shall be decided on the basis of the rules of corrective allocation and what is in the best interests of the unaccompanied minor.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Where the applicant has a family member, regardless of whether the family was previously formed in the country of origin, who has been allowed to reside as a beneficiary of international protection in a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, provided that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing of their own free will.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Where the applicant is in possession of a valid visa ~~or a visa expired less than six months before lodging the first application~~ , the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, unless the visa was issued on behalf of another Member State under a representation arrangement as provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . In such a case, the represented Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. _________________ 25 Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 July 2009, establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4

4. The fact that the residence document or visa was issued on the basis of a false or assumed identity or on submission of forged, counterfeit or invalid documents shall not prevent responsibility being allocated to the Member State which issued it. However, the Member State issuing the residence document or visa shall not be responsible if it can establish that a fraud was committed after the document or visa had been issued. In this case, the State against which the fraud was committed may return the holder of invalid documents, provided that his or her life and physical integrity will not be endangered.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28

~~[...]~~deleted

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37

The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall in that case apply the reference key during this twelve-month period to those Member States with a number of applications for which they are the Member States responsible below their share pursuant to Article 35(1), with the exception of the Member State which entered the information, as well as the benefitting Member State. The automated system referred to in Article 44(1) shall count each application which would have otherwise been allocated to the Member State which entered the information pursuant to Article 36(4) for the share of 3.At the end of the twelve-month period referred to in paragraph 2, the automated system shall communicate to the Member State not taking part in the corrective allocation mechanism the number of applicants for whom it would have otherwise been the Member State of allocation. That Member State shall thereafter make a solidarity contribution of EUR 250,000 per each applicant who would have otherwise been alloca2. deleted to that Member State during the respective twelve-month period. The solidarity contribution shall be paid to the Member State determined as responsible for examining the respective applications. 4.The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt a decision in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56, lay down the modalities for the implementation of paragraph 3. 5. The European Union Agency for Asylum shall monitor and report to the Commission on a yearly basis on the application of the financial solidarity mechanism. Obligations of the benefitting Member State The benefitting Member State shall:.

2017/03/28
Committee: AFET

22 Amendments of Georgios EPITIDEIOS related to 2016/0133(COD)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024