10 Amendments of Simon BUSUTTIL related to 2012/2032(INI)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the fact that there has been a sharp decrease in the number of asylum applications in the past decade in the EU; highlights that as a whole and in some Member States; highlights however that, when considering their geographic and demographic characteristics, certain Member States face disproportionate asylum requests compared to others, and that asylum applications are unevenly spread across the EU; stresses that it is crucial to identify these inequalities by, inter alia, comparing absolute numbers andwith capacity indicators;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that a high level of protection for asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection cannot be achieved if the discrepancies in the proportion of asylum applications to the individual Member States' absorption capacity and in the technical and administrative capacities in different Member States are not redressed;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that although the number of asylum applications is not constant, it is predictable to some extent, especially as regards EU entry pointsthere is evidence of specific entry points at the EU's external borders which constitute hot spots, and from which it is reasonably predictable that a large number of asylum applications may be lodged;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that the Dublin Regulation, which governs the allocation of responsibility for asylum applications, while placinges a disproportionate burden on Member States constituting entry points into the EU, and does not provide the means for them to respond adequately to the administrative and financial demands involvedallow for a fair distribution of asylum responsibility among Member States; notes that the Dublin system as it has been applied so far has led to the unequal treatment of asylum seekers across the EUin some Member States while also having an adverse impact on family reunification and integration; stresses, moreover, its shortcomings in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, since more than half of agreed transfers never take place and multiple applications are still the rule;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that joint processing could constitute a valuable tool for solidarity and responsibility-sharing in preventing or rectifying capacity problems, reducing the burdens and costs related to asylum processing, and ensuring a more equitable sharing of responsibility for the processing of asylum applications; notes that this would need to be complemented by a system to ensure a more equitable sharing of responsibility once applications are processed;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Stresses the importance of projects such as the European Union's Relocation Project for Malta (EUREMA), which relocates and its extension, under which beneficiaries of international protection have been, and are being, relocated from Malta to other Member States, and advocates developing more initiatives of this kind; regrets that this project has not been as successful as expected because Member States were reluctant to participate; calls on Member States to actively participate in the EUREMA project in a spirit of solidarity; welcomes the Commission's commitment to undertake a thorough evaluation of the EUREMA project and submit a proposal for a permanent EU Relocation SchemeMechanism;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29 a. Calls on the Commission to submit as soon as possible a legislative proposal for the establishment of a permanent and effective intra-EU Relocation Mechanism for beneficiaries of international protection and asylum-seekers present in Member States which are facing specific and disproportionate pressures on their national asylum systems, in particular due to their geographic location or their demographic situation;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)
Paragraph 29 b (new)
29 b. Calls on the Commission to base this intra-EU Relocation Mechanism on a European Distribution Key which takes into consideration Member States' GDP, population and the size of their land territory. Such a European Distribution Key would be without prejudice to each Member States' obligation to fully implement and apply the existing European asylum acquis and to adhere to all international obligations in this field;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission to include strong procedural safeguards and clear criteria in its proposal for a permanent EU relocation scheme, in order to guarantee potential beneficiaries’ best interests and relieve migratory pressure in the Member States particularly exposed to migration flows; Rrecommends involving the host community, civil society and local authorities from the outset in relocation initiatives;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Notes that the Commission has indicated that it will always consider activating the mechanism of the Temporary Protection Directive when the appropriate conditions are met, in particular in the event of a mass influx or imminent mass influx of displaced persons unable to return to their country of origin in safe and durable conditions; calls on the Commission to make it possible for this Directive to be activated even in cases where the relevant influx constitutes a mass influx for at least one Member State and not only when it constitutes a mass influx for the EU as a whole;