Activities of Martine ROURE related to 2007/2262(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Evaluation of the Dublin system (debate)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to its reports on the visits by its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to detention centres in several Member States,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas asylum legislation and practice still vary widely from country to country and that, the recognition rate for asylum applications can vary up to a hundredfold between different Member States and, as a result, asylum-seekers receive different treatment from one Dublin State to another,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there is evidence thatimplementation of the Dublin Regulation implies an obligation for at least one Member State to conduct a full examination of the asylum seeker’s need for protection, and whereas it is apparent that in implementing this Regulation some Member States do not guarantee effective access to a procedure for determining refugee status,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas some Member States systematically place persons subject to the Dublin system in detention,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the high level of multiple requests and the low level of effected transfers are indicators of the deficiencies of the Dublin system and of the need to establish a European asylum system,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas a correstrict implementation of the Dublin Regulation may well result in the unequal distribution of responsibility for persons seeking protection, to the detriment of some Member States particularly exposed to migration flows simply on the grounds of their geographical location, and whereas that has negative consequences for persons seeking protection and for the quality of decisions on asylum applications,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the Dublin Regulation establishes a system which is designed to determine the Member State responsible for dealing with a claim, but iwas not and cannotoriginally set up to be a burden sharing mechanism,
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas it is essential that individuals lodging claims are fully apprised of the Dublin process, in a language they understand, and its possible consequences,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
Ma. whereas in 2005 nine of the new Member States stated that they were registering more ‘incoming’ transfers under the Dublin Regulation and Member States with no external land border of the Union stated that they were registering more ‘outgoing’ transfers,
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M b (new)
Recital M b (new)
Mb. whereas the Commission has been unable to evaluate the cost of the system and whereas that information is important to be able to assess its effectiveness,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Strongly believes that unless a satisfactory and consistent level of protection is achieved across the European Union, the Dublin System will always produce unsatisfactory results from both the technical and the human viewpoints, and asylum seekers will continue to have valid reasons for wishing to lodge their application in a specific Member State and thus to try to circumvent the systemto take advantage of the most favourable national rules;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Strongly believes that in the absence of a genuine European asylum system and a single procedure the Dublin system will continue to be unfair both to asylum seekers and certain Member States;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission, pending the introduction of European burden-sharing mechanisms, to consider providing for mechanisms within the Dublin Regulation to correct the adverse effects of its implementation for the Member States at the Union’s external borders;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to provide for a binding mechanism to stop transfers of asylum applicants to Member States that do not guarantee full and fair treatment of their claims;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Member States to stop all transfers to Member States that do not guarantee full and fair treatment of asylum applications while the infringement proceedings are in progress;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Commission to assess the possibility for individuals concerned by a transfer to another Member State under the Dublin system to be able to be transferred to their country of origin, solely at their explicit request and on the basis of full compliance with procedural rights;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Deplores the systematic use of detention by certain Member States for asylum seekers awaiting transfer to the country responsible for examining their application; believes that such individuals should not be placed in detention;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Expresses its concern that no cost assessment of the Dublin system is currently available; calls on the Commission to remedy this as it is an important aspect of the evaluation of the system;