BETA

36 Amendments of Pier Antonio PANZERI related to 2016/0133(COD)

Amendment 11 #
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 15 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
(19) The definition of a family member in this Regulation should include the 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, allowing for reunification with a married or unmarried partner and considering the specificities of de facto families and relationships. 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
Amendment 18 #
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. Separated children, which are also legally considered as unaccompanied minors, is a distinct category that should require specific attention. 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 lodgedis present 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. In order to avoid excessive pressure on the social system of single Member States and ensure a fair sharing of responsibility, the corrective allocation mechanism should include specific provisions for unaccompanied minors. 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.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) All persons subject to this regulation should have the right to an effective remedy, in the form of an appeal or review, in fact and in law. 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 and the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as of the European Court of Human Rights 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 or returned. The scope of the effective remedy should be limited to, in particular, concern 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
Amendment 35 #
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, but also taking into account a wish of preference of the applicant especially if motivated by familiar reunification where the number of applications for international protection for which a Member State is responsible exceeds 150% 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. The category of unaccompanied minors should require particular attention and a distinct key should be determined for them with the same calculation formula.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 45 #
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 61 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point j
(j) ‘unaccompanied minor’ means a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her, whether by law or by the practice of the Member State concerned, and for as long as he or she is not effectively taken into the care of such an adult; it includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of Member States, as well as minors who have been separated from both parents or from their previous legal or customary primary care-giver;
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the border or in the transit zones. Member States shall instruct their diplomatic representations in third countries to consider applications for international protection in order to avoid excessive pressure on the asylum systems of frontline Member States. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate is responsible.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because it carries already a disproportioned share of responsibility or because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 68 #
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 74 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Where the Member State considers an application inadmissible or examines an application in accelerated procedure pursuant to paragraph 3, that Member State shall be considered the Member State responsible.deleted
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The Member State which has examined an application for international protection, including in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, shall be responsible for examining any further representations or a subsequent application of that applicant 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.deleted
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection has entered irregularly into the territory of the Member States, the application shall be made in the Member State of that first where he or she is presentry. Where a person who intends to make an application for international protection is legally present in a Member State, the application shall be made in that Member State.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. If an applicant does not comply with the obligation set out in Article 4(1), the Member State responsible in accordance with this Regulation shall examine the application in an accelerated procedure, in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU.deleted
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 85 #
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 Stathas been relocated shall be the one responsible for bearing the consequences of non-compliance.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. The applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU, with the exception of emergency health care, during the procedures under this Regulation in any Member State other than the one in which he or she is required to be present.deleted
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) that the right to apply for international protection does not encompass any choice of the applicant which Member State shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection, except when he or she is eligible for family reunification;
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) of the objectives of this Regulation and the consequences of making another application in a different Member State as well as the consequences of leaving the Member State where he or she is obliged to be present during the phases in which the Member State responsible under this Regulation is being determined and the application for international protection is being examined , in particular that the applicant shall not be entitled to the reception conditions set out in Articles 14 to 19 of Directive 2013/33/EU in any Member State other than the one where he or she is required to be present, with the exception of emergency health care ;
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The best interests of the child shall be athe primary consideration for Member States with respect to all procedures provided for in this Regulation.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Each Member State where an unaccompanied minor is obliged to be present shall ensure that a representative represents and/or assists the unaccompanied minor with respect to the relevant procedures provided for in this Regulation. The representative shall have the qualifications and expertise to ensure that the best interests of the minor are taken into consideration during the procedures carried out under this Regulation. Such representative shall have access to the content of the relevant documents in the applicant’s file including the specific leaflet for unaccompanied minors.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
This paragraph shall be without prejudice to the relevant provisions in Article 25 of Directive 2013/32/EU. Due to the vulnerability of this group of applicants, unaccompanied minors should not be transferred to another Member State except if it is in the child's best interest.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 114 #
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, through a prioritised procedure pursuant to Article 31(7) of Directive 2013/32/EU. 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.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 115 #
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 67(2) and 78(2)(e) thereof,
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a regulation
Citation 2 a (new)
Having regard to the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular Article 18 thereof;
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The criteria for determining the Member State responsible shall be applied only once, in the order in which they are set out in this Chapter.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) Such a method should be based on the principle of solidarity and objective, fair criteria both for the Member States and for the persons concerned. It should, in particular, make it possible to determine rapidly the Member State responsible, so as to guarantee effective access to the procedures for granting international protection and not to compromise the objective of the rapid processing of applications for international protection.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. In the absence of a family member or a relative as referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Member State responsible shall be that where the unaccompanied minor first has lodged his or her application for international protection,is present unless it is demonstrated that this is not in the best interests of the minor.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 134 #
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 139 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Member State in which an application for international protection is made 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 , request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations ,or on the basis of family, cultural or social ties or language skills which would facilitate his of her integration into that other Member State 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 140 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
(16) In accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, respect for family lifeprivate and family life, as well as for the principle of non-discrimination, should be a primary consideration of Member States when applying this Regulation.
2017/04/04
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph new4
new4. The scope of the effective remedy laid down in paragraph 1 shall be limited to an assessment of whether Articles 3(2) in relation to the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or Articles 10 to 13 and 18 are infringed upon.deleted
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is subject to the procedure established by this Regulation. Detention shall always remain a measure of last resort and alternatives to detention shall always be a priority. Children shall not to be detained as detention can never be in the child's best interests.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The automatic, mandatory and permanent allocation mechanism referred to in this Chapter shall be applied for the benefit of a Member State, where that Member State is confronted with a disproportionate number of applications for international protection for which it is the Member State responsible under this Regulation.
2017/03/28
Committee: AFET
Amendment 157 #
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 349 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)
(ra) "temporary reception centers" means the centres set up pursuant to article 3-bis, paragraph 2, point c), and paragraph 3, in which international protection applicants will be accommodated pending their transfer to the Member State responsible for examination of their application;
2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 391 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)
Article 3 a Article 3-bis Presentation of international protection applications 1. International protection applications may also be lodged: a) at the dedicated "International Protection Application Offices" that the European Commission may establish pursuant to a bilateral agreement with a third country, in refugee camps situated in countries adjacent to countries in conflict or in countries from which there is a massive exodus of persons who aspire to international protection status. At the time of establishment of such offices, the Commission: i. shall consult the Council and Political and Security Committee in order to guarantee co-ordination with the activity of EU Delegations for management of the crises which may be occurring on the territory of that third country State; ii. agree with the Member States the sufficient recruitment mechanisms to find the qualified human resources needed for execution of the tasks of the said offices. b) at the offices of EU Delegations or diplomatic Representatives of Member States previously identified by the Commission, in agreement with the European structure to which the Delegation or Member State responds. 2. The European Union shall make appropriate bilateral agreements with third countries in which the office is to be established for the institution of "International Protection Application Offices" referred to at 3 paragraph, point c) above. Such bilateral agreements shall relate to: a) the ability to establish the office; b) the legal status of the EU personnel assigned to that office; c) the creation of temporary reception centres at the offices for applicants awaiting their transfer to the European Union; d) any co-operation with other international entities or bodies or N.G.O's for the management of temporary reception centres referred to at letter c); e) the ability to create humanitarian corridors via air, sea or land transport for applicants from the temporary reception centre to the territory of the European Union; f) the willingness of the third country to accept the return of applicants coming from that Centre in the event of final refusal of their application for international protection. 3. Similar agreements to those set forth in paragraph 2 may be reached by the European Union with third countries where EU Delegations or Member State diplomatic representatives are established, as identified pursuant to art. 3.1.d).
2017/04/25
Committee: LIBE