Activities of Iliana IOTOVA related to 2015/0125(NLE)
Plenary speeches (2)
Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (debate) FR
Provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (debate) BG
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a Council decision establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece PDF (261 KB) DOC (392 KB)
Amendments (24)
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) In accordance with Article 78 (2) of the Treaty the Commission should propose to the European Parliament and the Council by the end of 2015 a permanent mechanism for administrating emergency measures in the case that one or more Member States are faced with an emergency situation, characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries to the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) When drafting the permanent mechanism for relocation under Article 78 (2) of the Treaty as an emergency measure, when one or more Member States are faced with an emergency situation, the Commission should provide a definition of the terms "sudden inflow of nationals of third countries" and "exceptional migratory pressure".
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) SeveralThe Member States wein South and South-eastern Europe on the external borders of the EU are confronted with a significant increase in the total number of migrants, including applicants for international protection, arriving on their territories in 2014 and some continue to be so in the first months ofsince 20151. Emergency financial assistance by the European Commission and operational support by EASO were provided to several Member States to help them cope with this increase.
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Among the Member States witnessing situations of particular pressure in South and South-eastern Europe and in light of the recent tragic events in the Mediterranean, Italy and Greece in particular havare experienceding unprecedented flows of migrants, including applicants for international protection who are in clear need of international protection, arriving on their territories, generating a significant pressure on their migration and asylum systems.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) The expert forecast shows an increased migratory pressure in a short- and mid-term perspective on the external maritime and land borders of the EU.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) The financial, administrative and technical capacity in the Member States on the external borders of the EU is almost depleted and this impedes the management of the migratory flows.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) According to Frontex data, another important migration route into the Union since 20141 was the Western Balkan route with 43 357 irregular border crossings. However, the majority of migrants using the Balkan route are not prima facie in need of international, the migration from the Middle East and North Africa, in particular from Syria and Afghanistan through the land borders of Hungary and the borders of Turkey with Greece and Bulgaria. The migratory flow through these borders is increasing protecportion, with 51% of the arrivals being made up only of Kosovars. ally, regardless of the measures taken in fighting trafficking and smuggling of migrants.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) With regards of the expectations for an increased migratory pressure on other Member States on the external borders of the EU, the Commission should guarantee a display of solidarity through drawing up and implementation of a permanent mechanism for relocation under Article 78 (2) of the Treaty.
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 15 a (new)
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) The temporary measures for relocation by the Commission are only one part of the future holistic policy on migration by creating legal ways for migration, integration programmes, cooperation with third countries and fighting trafficking.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) In accordance with Article 78(2) of the Treaty the Commission should come up with a proposal for a permanent mechanism for relocation with strictly defined criteria.
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) A choice had to be made in respect of the criteria to be applied when deciding which and how many applicants are to be relocated from Italy and Greece. A clear and workable system is envisaged based on a threshold of the average rate at Union level of decisions granting international protection in the procedures at first instance as defined by Eurostat out of the total number at Union level of decisions on asylum applications for international protection taken at first instance, based on the latest available statistics. On the one hand, this threshold would have to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that all applicants who are most likely in need of international protection would be in a position to fully and swiftly enjoy their protection rights in the Member State of relocation. On the other hand, it would prevent, to the maximum extent possible, applicants who are likely to receive a negative decision to their application from being relocated to another Member State and therefore prolong unduly their stay in the Union. Based on Eurostat data for 2014 first instance decisions, a threshold of 75%, which corresponds in that year to decisions on applications for Syrians and Eritreans, should be used in this Decision.
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) In accordance with Article 78(2) of the Treaty the Commission should propose criteria to determine the applicants who will be relocated, as well as the Member States for relocation.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 20 a (new)
Recital 20 a (new)
(20a) When drafting the permanent mechanism for relocation under Article 78(2) of the Treaty, the Commission should include the territory of a Member State as a criterion for determining the distribution key of migrants.
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21a) The Commission should control the spending of the sum of EUR 6000 for the relocation of each applicant.
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) NGuaranteeing the national security and public order should be taken into considerationin Greece and Italy, as well as in all other Member States is of an utmost importance throughout the relocation procedure of the applicant, until the transfer of is implemented. It is essential to strengthen applicant is implementednd further develop the cooperation between the European and national law enforcement agencies when screening and identifying the applicants.
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In addition, in order to decide which specific Member State should be the Member State of relocation, specific account should be given to the specific qualifications of the applicants concerned which ccultural and linguistic ties, social-economical conditions and the needs of the Member State of relocation including the provisions of the Regulation EU (604/2013), as well as broader family ties, going outside the scope of this Regulation. All this should facilitate their integration intof the Member State of relocation, such as their language skillsasylum seekers. Where appropriate, their own preferences should be taken into account. In the case of particularly vulnerable applicants, consideration should be given to the capacity of the Member State of relocation to provide adequate support to those applicants.
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) The appointment by Member States of liaison officers in Italy and Greece should facilitate the effective implementation of the relocation procedure, including the appropriate identification of the applicants to be relocated, taking into account in particular their vulnerability and qualifications and, as far as possible, their preferences.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. It is necessary to include a review clause at the end of the first year of implementation.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. As soon as possible after receiving the information referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall inform about the available capacity for reception of migrants and indicate the number of applicants who can be relocated immediately to their territory and any other relevant information, within the numbers set out in Annex I and Annex II respectively.
Amendment 146 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – introductory part
Article 7 – introductory part
Member States shall increase their support in the area of international protection to Italy and Greece via the relevant activities coordinated by EASO and other relevant Agencies, in particular by providing when necessary national experts upon previous agreement with the hosting Member States for the following support activities:
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – point b
Article 7 – point b
(b) the initial processing of the applications; the screening of the third- country nationals arriving in Italy and Greece, including their clear identification, fingerprinting and registration of the applications for international protection;
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – point d
Article 7 – point d
(d) the implementation of the transfer of the applicants to the Member State of relocation. The transfer costs to the Member State of relocation should not be an additional burden to Greece and Italy.
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. If Italy or Greece does not comply with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may decide, having given the State concerned the opportunity to present its views, to suspend this Decision with regard to that Member State for a period of up to three months. The Commission may decide once to extend such suspension for a further period of up to three months. Or. {EN}en
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a decision
Article 11
Article 11
Italy and Greece shall report to the Council and the Commission on the implementation of this Decision, including on the roadmaps referred to in Article 8, every threesix months.