11 Amendments of Nadine MORANO related to 2016/0224(COD)
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39a
Recital 39a
(39a) In the interest of swift and fair procedures for all applicants, whilst also ensuring that the stay of applicants who do not qualify for international protection in the Union is not unduly prolonged, including those who are nationals of third countries exempt from the requirement to be in a possession of a visa pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 2018/1806, Member States should accelerate the examination of applications of applicants who are nationals or, in the case of stateless persons, formerly habitual residents of a third country for which the share of decisions granting international protection is lower than 240% of the total number of decisions for that third country. Where a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data and taking into account the guidance note pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation XX/XX on the European Asylum Agency, or where the applicant belongs to a specific category of persons for whom the low recognition rate cannot be considered as representative of their protection needs due to a specific persecution ground, examination of the application should not be accelerated. Cases where a third country may be considered as a safe country of origin or a safe third country for the applicant within the meaning of this Regulation should remain applicable as a separate ground for respectively the accelerated examination procedure or the inadmissible procedure.
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40a
Recital 40a
(40a) The purpose of the border procedure for asylum and return should be to quickly assess at the external borders whether applications are unfounded or inadmissible and to swiftly return those with no right to stay, while ensuring that those with well-founded claims are channelled into the regular procedure and provided quick access to international protection. Member States should therefore be able to require applicants for international protection to stay at the external border or in a transit zone in order to assess the admissibility of applications. In well-defined circumstances, Member States should be able to provide for the examination of the merits of an application and, in the event of rejection of the application, for the immediate return of the third- country nationals and stateless persons concerned at the external borders.
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40b
Recital 40b
(40b) Member State should assess applications in a border procedure where the applicant is a danger to national security or public order, where the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision and where it is likely that the application is unfounded because the applicant is of a nationality for whom decisions granting international protection is lower than 240% of the total number of decisions for that third country. In other cases, such as when the applicant is from a safe country of origin or a safe third country, the use of the border procedure should be optional for the Member States.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40d
Recital 40d
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40e
Recital 40e
(40e) The duration of the border procedure for examination of applications for international protection should be as short as possible while at the same time guaranteeing a complete and fair examination of the claims. It should in any event not exceed 12 weeks. This deadline should be understood as a stand-alone deadline for the asylum border procedure, encompassing both the decision on the examination of the application as well as the appeal decision of the first level of appea, at a single level, if applicable. Within this period, Member States are entitled to set the deadline in national law both for the administrative and for the appeal stage, but should set them in a way so as to ensure that the examination procedure is concluded and that subsequently, if relevant, the decision on the first level of appeal, appeal included, is issued within this maximum 12 weeks. After that period, if the Member State nevertheless failed to take the relevant decisions, the applicant should in principle be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State. Entry into the territory should however not be authorised where the applicant has no right to remain, where he or she has not requested to be allowed to remain for the purpose of an appeal procedure, or where a court or tribunal has decided that he or she should not be allowed to remain pending the outcome of an appeal procedure. In such cases, to ensure continuity between the asylum procedure and the return procedure, the return procedure should also be carried out in the context of a border procedure for a period not exceeding 12 weeks. This period should be counted starting from the moment in which the applicant, third-country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain or is no longer allowed to remain.
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 h
Recital 40 h
(40h) When applying the border procedure for carrying out return, certain provisions of the [recast Return Directive] should apply as these regulate elements of the return procedure that are not determined by this Regulation, notably those on definitions, more favourable provisions, non-refoulement, best interests of the child, family life and state of health, risk of absconding, obligation to cooperate, period for voluntary departure, return decision, removal, postponement of removal, return and removal of unaccompanied minors, entry bans, safeguards pending return, detention, conditions of detention, detention of minors and families and emergency situations. To reduce the risk of unauthorised entry and movement of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to the border procedure for carrying out return, a period for voluntary departure not exceeding 15 days may be granted to illegally staying third-country nationals, without prejudice for the possibility to voluntarily comply with the obligation to return at any moment.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
Recital 65
(65) For an applicant to be able to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, all effects of the return decision should be automatically suspended for as long as the applicant has the right to remain or has been allowed to remain on the territory of a Member State. To improve the effectiveness of procedures at the external border, while ensuring the respect of the right to an effective remedy, appeals against decisions taken in the context of the border procedure should take place only before a single level of jurisdiction of a court or tribunal.
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) Applicants should, in principle, have the right to remain on the territory of a Member State until the time-limit for lodging an appeal before a court or tribunal of first instance expires, and, where such a right is exercised within the set time-limit, pending the outcome of the appeal. It is only in the limited cases set out in this Regulation, where applications are likely to be unfounded, that the applicant should not have an automatic right to remain for the purpose of the appeal. To avoid possible misuse of rights and procedures, a maximum period not exceeding two days should be granted to appeal to a court or tribunal against a return decision.
Amendment 282 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Amendment 419 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 41 a – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. A period for voluntary departure cannot be granted where it has been assessed that third-country nationals pose a risk of absconding, have had a previous application for legal stay dismissed as fraudulent, manifestly unfounded or inadmissible, or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security.
Amendment 501 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1
Article 54 – paragraph 1
1. The effects of a return decision shall not be automatically suspended for as long as an applicant has a right to remain or is allowed to remain in accordance with this Article.