9 Amendments of Sabrina PIGNEDOLI related to 2019/2206(INI)
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the lack of an automatic mandatory redistribution mechanism for applicants for international protection within the European Union has meant that one-third of the Member States currentlyhave played host to 90% of asylum seekers;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there have been significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Dublin III Reg implementation of the Dublin III Regulation has been a total failure because of rules that have proven themselves to be inappropriate for dealing with substantial influxes of migrants, resulation, including during the COVID- 19 crisis,ng in a system that places excessive responsibility and burdens upon a few Member States, and has seriously undermininged the right to international protection and, leading to violations of fundamental rights;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States, including through relocation on the basis of objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum; in- depth changes are needed to the rules and criteria for assigning responsibility, moving beyond the principle of first country of irregular entry, broadening the concept of family unit and adding other connecting factors to determine responsibility for examining an application for international protection; considers it vital to establish a mandatory solidarity mechanism that is automatically applicable to all Member States; the mechanism should have no application thresholds and be constantly updated, making for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States on the basis of objective criteria such as Gross Domestic Product, population and unemployment rate in the various Member States; considers it essential to relocate to the various EU Member States - directly at the time of irregular entry into the territory of the Union, and without prior screening of any kind - all those seeking international protection in the Union; considers, in this regard, that any prior screening has the sole effect of imposing excessive burdens on the Member States of first arrival and can under no circumstances replace a thorough individual examination of an application for international protection; is of the view that provision should also be made for an ad hoc redistribution mechanism for all those who are rescued in the course of a search and rescue operation and who request international protection; considers, furthermore, that the Dublin system should always be able to ensure flexibility of application, in particular by avoiding the laying down of rules that involve the sole, permanent responsibility of one Member State;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at EU level; deplores the fact that efforts to overhaul the Dublin III Regulation have been blocked in the Council; finds it particularly regrettable that the Union is currently faced with the same set of rules which have helped exacerbate divisions between Member States and have proven to be totally ineffective in managing a large influx of refugees, such as that which the Union had to deal with in 2015-2016;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States to make use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional circumstances so warrant, for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the Greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent reception conditions;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stresses the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States; regards efforts to combat secondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes that the conditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonised;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under Dublin III undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying-out of transfers and contribute to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the systemby encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system; deplores the often spurious reasons put forward by Member States for refusing transfers; calls on the Commission to revise the rules, in order to give Member States sufficient time to carry out transfers, and dto away with transfer of responsibility in cases where an asylum seeker abscondmonitor the situation and, where necessary, impose penalties on Member States which refuse transfers;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the rate of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities; considers that a harmonisation of procedures, which should include also a common list of safe countries of origin and a shared country-risk analysis, or at least greater convergence, would reduce these disparities, and thus also the number of secondary movement in order to determine whether a given third country can be considered a safe country, would reduce these disparities; stresses that the return of persons not eligible for asylum is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the Dublin III Regulation and that voluntary return mechanisms should be encouraged;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that some two-thirds of asylum applications are submitted by nationals of safethird countries who have arrived in the EU on a visa or visa waiver; considers that these applications may, in such cases, prove to be manifestly unfounded applications, while contributeing to the overloading of asylum systems in the Member States, lengthening the time needed to examine applications and, ultimately, may have an adverse effect on the right to international protection in the Union; calls on the Commission and the Member States to make asylum and visa policies more consistent;