BETA

35 Amendments of Sofia SAKORAFA related to 2016/0133(COD)

Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) In order to prevent that applicants with inadmissible claims or who are likely not to be in need of international protection, or who represent a security risk are transferred among the Member States, it is necessary to ensure that the Member where an application is first lodged verifies the admissibility of the claim in relation to the first country of asylum and safe third country, examines in accelerated procedures applications made by applicants coming from a safe country of origin designated on the EU list, as well as applicants presenting security concerns.deleted
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) The concepts of safe countries and safe countries of origin should not prevent the identification of those seeking international protection, the individual examination of asylum applications and appropriate safeguards in respect of non- refoulement.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) The Member State which is determined as responsible under this Regulation shcould remainbe held responsible for examination of each and every application of that applicant, including any subsequent application, in accordance with Article 40, 41 and 42 of Directive 2013/32/EU, irrespective of whether the applicant has left or was removed from the territories of the Member States. Provisions in Regulation (EU) 604/2013 which had provided for the cessation of responsibility in certain circumstances, including when deadlines for the carrying out of transfers had elapsed for a certain period of time, hadmay have created an incentive for absconding, and should thereforeome of them could be removed.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) In order to ensure the speedy determination of responsibility and allocation of applicants for international protection between Member States, the deadlines for making and replying to requests to take charge, for making take back notifications, and for carrying out transfers, as well as for making and deciding on appeals, should be streamlined and shortened to the greatest extent possible, while respecting the rights of vulnerable persons, in particular the rights of the child and the fundamental principle of the best interests of the child and the principle of family reunification.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
(32) A key based on the size of the population and of, the economy and unemployment 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 15075% 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. As soon as this mechanism is triggered, take back requests should be suspended.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #
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 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. 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.deleted
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) A Member State of allocation mayFull compliance of Member States with their obligations for the application of the corrective allocation mechanism should be mandatory. Where a Member State of allocation decides not to accept the allocated applicants during a twelve months-period, in which case it should enter this information in the automated system 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. 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 mechanismSuch mechanism should be monitored by the European Commission and, in cases of non compliance, corrective measures should be taken immediately.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Before applying the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall: (a) examine whether the application for international protection is inadmissible pursuant to Article 33(2) letters b) and c) of Directive 2013/32/EU when a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum or as a safe third country for the applicant; and (b) examine the application in accelerated procedure pursuant to Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU when the following grounds apply: (i) the applicant has the nationality of a third country, or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country, designated as a safe country of origin in the EU common list of safe countries of origin established under Regulation [Proposal COM (2015) 452 of 9 September 2015]; or (ii) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered 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
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Before applyAny Member State shall retaing the criteria for determining a Member State responsible in accordance with Chapters III and IV, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall:ght to send an applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safeguards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation [Proposal for a Regulation recasting Regulation (EU) No 603/2013], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. That responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date on which the irregular border crossing took place.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
2. When a Member State cannot or can no longer be held responsible in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 25(4), that the applicant — who has entered the territories of the Member States irregularly or whose circumstances of entry cannot be established — has been living for a continuous period of at least five months in a Member State before lodging the application for international protection, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection. If the applicant has been living for periods of time of at least five months in several Member States, the Member State where he or she has been living most recently shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is madelodged and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined, or the Member State responsible, request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations, even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 a (new)
Article 20 a Cessation of responsibilities 1. Where a Member State issues a residence document to the applicant, the obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall be transferred to that Member State. 2. The obligations specified in Article 20(1) shall cease if the Member State responsible can establish, upon request to take charge or take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member State for at least three months, unless the person concerned is in possession of a valid residence document issued by the Member State responsible. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the first subparagraph of this Article shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible. 3. The obligations specified in Article 20(1)(c) and (d) shall cease if the Member State responsible can establish, when requested to take back an applicant or another person as referred to in Article 20(1)(c) or (d), that the person concerned has left the territory of the Member State to comply with a return decision or removal order issued following the withdrawal or rejection of the application. An application lodged after an effective removal has taken place shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
1. The process of determining the Member State responsible shall start as soon as an application for international protection is first lodged with a Member State, provided that the Member State of first application is not already the Member State responsible pursuant to Article 3(4) or (5).
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 5
5. An applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who there lodges an application for international protection after withdrawing his or her first application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 26 and 30, by the Member State with which that application for international protection was first lodged. That obligation shall cease if the Member State requested to complete the process of determining the Member State responsible can establish that the applicant has in the meantime left the territory of the Member State for a period of at least three months or has obtained a residence document from another Member State. An application lodged after the period of absence referred to in the second subparagraph shall be regarded as a new application giving rise to a new procedure for determining the Member State responsible.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. During this time, take charge or take back requests shall be suspended.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 applies where the automated system referred to in Article 44(1) indicates that the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible under the criteria in Chapter III, Articles 3(2) or (3), 18 and 19, in addition to the number of persons effectively resettled, is higher than 15075% of the reference number for that Member State as determined by the key referred to in Article 35.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(b a) the unemployment rate;
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. Applications declared inadmissible or examined in accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 3(3) shall not be subject to allocation.deleted
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37
1. A Member State may, at the end of the three-month period after the entry into force of this Regulation and at the end of each twelve-month period thereafter, enter in the automated system that it will temporarily not take part in the corrective allocation mechanism set out in Chapter VII of this Regulation as a Member State of allocation and notify this to the Member States, the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum. 2. 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 that Member State. 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 allocated 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.Article 37 deleted Financial solidarity
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1
The automated system shall notify the Member States and the Commission as soon as the number of applications in the benefitting Member State for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation is below 15075 % of its share pursuant to Article 35(1).
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 442 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) that a Member State may decide to apply the discretionary clauses under Article 19, as well as of the specific modalities relating to this procedure;
2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 472 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The competent authorities of the Member States shall keep the applicants informed upon their own request on the progress of the procedures carried out under this Regulation with regard to their application. In the case of minors, the competent authorities shall inform both the minor and the guardian.
2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 524 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Before transferring an unaccompanied minor to the Member State responsible or, where applicable, to the Member State of allocation, the transferring Member State shall make sure that the Member State responsible or the Member State of allocation takes the measures referred to in Articles 14 and 24 of Directive 2013/33/EU and Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU without delay. Any decision to transfer an unaccompanied minor shall be preceded by an assessment of his/her best interests. The assessment shall be based on the factors listed in paragraph 3. The assessment shall be done swiftly by staff with the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration.
2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 605 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. Where, on account of pregnancy, a new-born child, serious illness, severe disability, severe trauma or old age, an applicant is dependent on the assistance of his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States, or his or her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States is dependent on the assistance of the applicant, Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with that child, sibling or parent, provided that family ties existed in the country of origininsofar as the family ties already existed before the applicant arrived on the territory of the Member States, that the child, sibling or parent or the applicant is able to take care of the dependent person and that the persons concerned expressed their desire in writing.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 619 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is madelodged and which is carrying out the process of determining the Member State responsible, or the Member State responsible, may, at any time before a Member State responsible has been determined , request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations , on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations even where that other Member State is not responsible under the criteria laid down in Articles 10 to 13 and 18. The persons concerned must express their consent in writing.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 662 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State with which the application is lodged shall search the VIS pursuant to Article 21 of Regulation (EC) 767/2008. Where a hit in the VIS indicates that 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 shall indicate the visa application number and the Member State, the authority of which issued or extended the visa and whether the visa has been issued on behalf of another Member State.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 678 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Where a Member State with which an application for international protection has been lodged considers that another Member State is responsible for examining the application, it shall , as quickly as possible and in any event within onthree months of the date on which the application was lodged within the meaning of Article 21(2), request that other Member State to take charge of the applicant.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 700 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – title
Submitting a take back notificationrequest when a new application has been lodged in the requesting Member State
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 703 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. In a situation referred to in Article 20(1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) the Member State where the person is present shall make a take back notificationrequest at the latest within two weeks after receiving the Eurodac hit, and transfer that person to the Member State responsible .
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 708 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Where the take back request is not made within the periods laid down in paragraph 1, responsibility for examining the application for international protection shall lie with the Member State in which the new application was lodged.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 713 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. The Member State responsible shall confirm immediately the receipt of the notificationrequest to the Member State which made the notificationrequest.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 715 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt uniform conditions for the preparation and submission of take back notifications requests. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 56(2).
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 719 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 a (new)
Article 26 a Replying to a take back request 1. The requested Member State shall make the necessary checks and shall give a decision on the request to take back the person concerned as quickly as possible and in any event no later than one month from the date on which the request was received. When the request is based on data obtained from the Eurodac system, that time limit shall be reduced to two weeks. 2. Failure to act within the one month period or the two weeks period mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be tantamount to accepting the request, and shall entail the obligation to take back the person concerned, including the obligation to provide for proper arrangements for arrival.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 835 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) the unemployment rate
2017/05/05
Committee: LIBE