131 Amendments of Jeroen LENAERS related to 2016/0224(COD)
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31a
Recital 31a
(31a) In order to increase the efficiency of procedures and to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised movements, there should be no procedural gaps between the issuance of a negative decision on an application for international protection and of a return decision. A return decision should immediately be issued to applicants whose applications are rejected. Without prejudice to the right to an effective remedy, the return decision should either be part of the negative decision on an application for international protection or, if it is a separate act, be issued at the same time and together with the negative decision in order to fulfil the time limits provided for in this regulation.’ The competent authorities shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the applicant is personally available to receive the decisions.’
Amendment 85 #
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 20% 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, unless the applicant is a danger to national security or public order. 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 100 #
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 requiroblige applicants for international protection to stay, inter alia, 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 return of the third- country nationals and stateless persons concerned at the external borders.
Amendment 104 #
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 negativen 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 20% 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. Member States should ensure that applications in a border procedure are examined in facilities designated at their discretion that allow for a necessary restriction of movement to prevent absconding.
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40c
Recital 40c
(40c) When applying the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection, Member States should ensure that the necessary arrangements are made to accommodate the applicants at or close to the external border or transit zones, in accordance with Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive]. Member States may process the applications at a different location at the external border than that where the asylum application is made by transferring applicants to a specific location at or in the proximity of the external border of that Member States where appropriate facilities exist. Member States should retain discretion in deciding at which specific locations at the external borders such facilities should be set up, provided that appropriate capacities are guaranteed to prevent unauthorised movements. However, Member States should seek to limit the need for transferring applicants for this purpose, and therefore aim at setting up such facilities with sufficient capacity at border crossing points, or sections of the external border, where the majority of the number of applications for international protection are made, also taking into account the length of the external border and the number of border crossing points or transit zones. They should notify the Commission of the specific locations at the external border, transit zones or proximity of the external border where the border procedures will be carried out. In cases where the border procedure is applied and the capacity of the locations at or in proximity of the external border as notified by a Member State is temporarily exceeded, Member States may process those applications at another location within its territory, for the shortest time possible.
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40d
Recital 40d
Amendment 135 #
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 decision of the first level of appeal, 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 is issued within this maximum 12 week. 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 twhe moment in which the applicant, third-country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain or is no longer allowed to remainn the return decision have gained legal force.
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40f
Recital 40f
(40f) While the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection can be applied without recourse to detention, Member States should nevertheless be able to apply the grounds for detention during the border procedure in accordance with the provisions of the [Reception Conditions] Directive (EU) XXX/XXX in order to decide on the right of the applicant to enter the territory. If detention is used during such procedure, the provisions on detention of the [Reception Conditions] Directive (EU) XXX/XXX should apply, including the guarantees for detained applicants and the fact that an individual assessment of each case is necessary, judicial control and conditions of detention. A Member State may, in accordance with national law, impose additional obligations on the applicant in order to prevent unauthorised movements.
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40i
Recital 40i
(40i) Where an applicant, third-country national or stateless person who was detained during the border procedure for the examination of their application for international protection no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, Member States should be able to continue the detention for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory and carrying out the return procedure, respecting the guarantees and conditions for detention laid down in Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. An applicant, third-country national or stateless person who was not detained during the border procedure for the examination of an application for international protection, and who no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, could also be detained if there is a risk of absconding, if he or she avoids or hampers return, or if he or she poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security. Detention should be for as short a period as possible and should not exceed the maximum duration of the border procedure for carrying out returntime set out in Article 15 of Directive 2008/115 [Return Directive]. When the illegally staying third-country national does not return or is not removed within that period and the border procedure for carrying out return ceases to apply, the provisions of the [recast Return Directive] should apply. The maximum period of detention set by Article 15 of that Directive should include the period of detention applied during the border procedure for carrying our return.
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44a
Recital 44a
(44a) ‘An applicant who lodges a subsequent application at the last minute merely in order to delay or frustrate his or her removal should not be authorised to remain pending the finalisation of the decision declaring the application inadmissible in cases where it is immediately clear to the determining authority that no new elements have been presented and there is no risk of refoulement and provided that the application is made within one year of the decision by the determining authority on the first application. The determining authority shall issue a decision under national law confirming that these criteria are fulfilled in order for the applicant not to be authorised to remain. ’
Amendment 179 #
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 inadmissible, unfounded or manifestly unfounded, that the applicant should not have an automatic right to remain for the purpose of the appeal.
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66a
Recital 66a
(66a) ‘In cases where the applicant has no automatic right to remain for the purpose of the appeal, a court or tribunal should still be able to allow the applicant to remain on the territory of the Member State pending the outcome of the appeal, upon the applicant’s request or acting of its own motion. In such cases, applicants should have a right to remain until the time-limit for requesting a court or tribunal to be allowed to remain has expired and, where the applicant has presented such a request within the set time-limit, pending the decision of the competent court or tribunal. In order to discourage abusive or last minute subsequent applications, Member States should be able to provide in national law that applicants should have no right to remain during that period in the case of rejected subsequent applications, with a view to preventing further unfounded subsequent applications. In the context of the procedure for determining whether or not the applicant should be allowed to remain pending the appeal, the applicant’s rights of defence should be adequately guaranteed by providing him or her with the necessary interpretation and legal assistance. Furthermore, the competent court or tribunal should be able to examine the decision refusing to grant international protection in terms of facts and points of law.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66c
Recital 66c
(66c) To ensure the consistency of the legal review carried out by a court or tribunal on a decision rejecting an application for international protection and the accompanying return decision, and with a view to accelerating the examination of the case and reducing the burden on the competent judicial authorities, such decisions should be subject to common proceedings before the same court or tribunal in order to fulfil the time-limits provided for in this regulation.
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66d a (new)
Recital 66d a (new)
(66d a)The Commission should regularly monitor and evaluate whether this Regulation is being properly applied and implemented. To this end, the Commission should make use of its power to initiate a monitoring exercise by the European Asylum Agency in accordance with Article 14 (2) of [EUAA Regulation].
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) This Regulation should only apply to all applications for international protection made in the territory of the Member States, including those made at the external border, on the territorial sea or in the transit zones of Member States, and the withdrawal of international protection. Persons seeking international protection who are present on the territorial sea of a Member State should be disembarked on land and have their applications examined in accordance with this Regulation.
Amendment 239 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) following apprehension in connection with ana Member States territory after unauthorised crossing of the external border;
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) When, in the framework of an application being processed, the applicant is searched, that search should be carried in accordance with national legislation and the principle of proportionality and should be carried out by a person of the same sex. This should be without prejudice to a search carried out, for security reasons, on the basis of national law.
Amendment 260 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Access to the common procedure should be based on a threewo-step approach consisting of the making, and registering and the lodging of an application. Making and registering an application is the first step that triggers the application of this Regulation. A third- country national or stateless person is considered to have made an application when expressing a wish to receive international protection from a Member State. Such a wish may be expressed in any form and the individual applicant need not necessarily use specific words such as international protection, asylum or subsidiary protection. The defining element should be the expression by the third county national or the stateless person of a fear of persecution or serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence. In case of doubt whether a certain declaration may be construed as an application for international protection, the third-country national or stateless person should be expressly asked whether he or she wishes to receive international protection. The applicant should benefit from rights under this Regulation and Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive)27 as soon as he or she makes an application. _________________ 27OJ L […], […], p. […]. 27 OJ L […], […], p. […].
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) An application should be registered as soon as it is made. At this stage, the authorities responsible for receiving and registering applications, including border guards, police, immigration authorities, other authorities that have been entrusted by the Member States with those tasks and authorities responsible for detention facilities should register the application together with the personal details of the individual applicant. Those authorities should inform the applicant of his or her rights and obligations, as well as the consequences for the applicant in case of non-compliance with those obligations. The applicant should be given a document certifying that an application has been made. The time limit for lodging an application starts to run from the moment an application is registered.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Article 41 – paragraph 4
Amendment 277 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) The applicant should be informed properly of his or her rights and obligations in a timely manner and in a language that he or she understands or is reasonably meant to understand. Having regard to the fact that where, for instance, the applicWhere the applicant has been properly informed of his or her obligations referred to in this regulation and the consequences deriving from not adhering to these obligations, antd refuses to cooperate with the national authorities by not providing the elements necessary for the examination of the application and by not providing his or her fingerprints or facial imagebiometric data, or fails to lodge his or her application within the set time limit, the application cs should be rejected as abandoned, it is necessary that the applicant be informed of the consequences for not complying with those obligations.
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Article 41 – paragraph 5
5. The border procedure may only be applied to unaccompanied minors anin the cases referred to minors below the age of 12 and their family members in the cases referred to in Article 40(5) (b) Article 40(5) (b). Where the outcome of the age assessment referred to in Article 24 or the medical examination referred to Article 23 is not sufficiently conclusive, this exception shall not apply.
Amendment 288 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) This Regulation should provide for the possibility that applicants lodge an application on behalf of their spouse, partner in a stable and durable relationship, dependant adults and minors. This option allows for the joint examination of those applications. The right of each individual to seek international protection is guaranteed by the fact that if the applicant does not apply on behalf of the spouse, partner, dependant adult or minor within the set time-limit for lodging an application, the spouse or partner may still do in his or her own name, and the dependant adult or minor should be assisted by the determining authority. However, if a separate application is not justified, it should be considered as inadmissible.
Amendment 293 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) To ensure that unaccompanied minors have effective access to the procedure, they should always be appointed a guardian. The guardian should be a person or a representative of an organisation appointed to assist and guide the minor through the procedure with a view to safeguard the best interests of the child as well his or her general well-being. Where necessary, the guardian should exercise legal capacity for the minor. In order to provide effective support to the unaccompanied minors, guardians should not be placed in charge of a disproportionate number of unaccompanied minors and in any case no more than 20 at the same time. Member States should appoint entities or persons responsible for the support, supervision and monitoring of the guardians in the performance of their tasks. An unaccompanied minor should lodge an application in his or her own name or through the guardian. In order to safeguard the rights and procedural guarantees of an unaccompanied minor, the time-limit for him or her to lodge an application should start to run from when his or her guardian is appointed and they meet. Where the guardian does not lodge the application within the set time limit, the unaccompanied minor should be given an opportunity to lodge the application on his or her name with the assistance of the determining authority. The fact that an unaccompanied minor chooses to lodge an application in his or her own name should not preclude him or her from being assigned a guardian.
Amendment 293 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The border procedure may only be applied to minors below the age of 12 and their family members in the cases referred to in Article 40(5).
Amendment 301 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 6
Article 41 – paragraph 6
6. Applicants subject to the border procedure shall not be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State, without prejudice to paragraphs 9 and 11. When the border procedure ends, the decision to authorise entry shall be explicitly granted and recorded by the Member State carrying out the border procedure.
Amendment 308 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 7
Article 41 – paragraph 7
7. When applying the border procedure, Member States may carry out the procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining the application as laid down in Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management], except in the cases referred to in paragraph 3, without prejudice to the deadlines established in paragraph 11
Amendment 332 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) The examination of an application should be accelerated and completed within a maximum of two months in those instances where an application is manifestly unfounded because it is an abusive claim, including where an applicant comes from a safe country of origin or an applicant is making an application merely to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a removal decision, or where relevant information or documents where destroyed or disposed of, or where there are serious national security or public concerns, where the applicant does not apply for international protection in the first Member State of entry or in the Member State of legal residence or where an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document is taken back under the Dublin Regulation. In the latter case, the examination of the application should not be accelerated if the applicant is able to provide substantiated justifications for having left to another Member State without authorisation, for having made an application in another Member State or for having otherwise been unavailable to the competent authorities, such as for instance that he or she was not informed adequately and in a timely manner of his or her obligations. Furthermore, an accelerated examination procedure may be applied to unaccompanied minors only within the limited circumstances set out in this Regulation.
Amendment 349 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Where an applicant either explicitly withdraws his or her application of his or her own motion, or does not comply with the obligations arising from this Regulation, Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation) or Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive) thereby implicitly withdraws his or her applicatio, his or her application will be regarded as implicitly withdrawn, the application should not be further examined and it should be rejected as explicitly withdrawn or abandoned, and any application in the Member States by the same applicant further after that decision should be considered to be a subsequent application. However, the implicit withdrawal should not be automatic but the applicant should be allowed the opportunity to report to the determining authority and demonstrate that the failure to comply, on more than one occasion, with those obligations was due to circumstances beyond his control.
Amendment 352 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) Where an applicant makes a subsequent application without presenting new evidence or findings which significantly increase his or her likelihood of qualifying as a beneficiary of international protection or which relate to the reasons for which the previous application was rejected as inadmissible, that subsequent application should not be subject to a new full examination procedure. In those cases, following a preliminary examination, applications should be dismissed as inadmissible or as manifestly unfounded where the application is soabusive or clearly withoutlacking substance or abusivetive elements that it has no tangible prospect of success, in accordance with the res judicata principle. The preliminary examination shall be carried out on the basis of written submissions and a personal interview however the personal interview may be dispensed with in those instances where, from the written submissions, it is clear that the application does not give rise to relevant new elements or findings or that it is clearly without substance and has no tangible prospect of successlacking substantive elements and has no prospect of success, or when the subsequent application is made shortly before the removal or flight and there are indications that it is made merely to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a removal decision. In case of subsequent applications, exceptions may be made to the individual's right to remain on the territory of a Member State after a subsequent application is rejected as inadmissible or unfounded, or in the case of a second or further subsequent applications, as soon as an application is made in any Member States following a final decision which had rejected a previous subsequent application as inadmissible, unfounded or manifestly unfounded.
Amendment 367 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) the applicant is a danger to national security or public order.
Amendment 406 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
2. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be kept for a period not exceeding 12 weeks in locations at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones; where a Member State cannot accommodate them in those locations, it can resort to the use of other locations within its territory. The 12- week perio, provided sthall start from when the applicant, third-country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain and is not allowed to remaint the efficiency of the procedure and restrictions to the freedom of movement can be preserved. The 12- week period shall start from when the return decision have gained legal force.
Amendment 414 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 4
Article 41 a – paragraph 4
4. Without prejudice to the possibility to return voluntarily at any moment, persons referred to in paragraph 1 may be granted a period for voluntary departure not exceeding 15 days. In the framework of this Article, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and the European Union Agency for Asylum shall, within its mandate, support national authorities with return operations.
Amendment 422 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 5
Article 41 a – paragraph 5
5. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 who have been detained during the procedure referred to in Article 41 and who no longer have a right to remain and are not allowed to remain may continue to be detained for the purpose of preventing entry into the territory of the Member State, preparing the return or carrying out the removal process. A Member State may, in accordance with national law, impose additional obligations on the applicant in order to prevent unauthorised movements.
Amendment 432 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 7
Article 41 a – paragraph 7
7. Detention shall be maintained for as short a period as possible, as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence. The period of detention shall not exceed the period referred to in paragraph 2 and shall be included in the maximum periods of detention set in Article 15 (5) and (6) of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive].
Amendment 437 #
8. Member States that, following the rejection of an application in the context of the procedure referred to in Article 41, issue a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, and that have decidedmay decide not to apply Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] in such cases pursuant to Article 2(2), point (a), of that Directive,. Member States shall ensure that the treatment and level of protection of the third-country nationals and stateless persons subject to a refusal of entry are in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] and are equivalent to the ones set out in paragraphs 2, 4 and 7 of this Article.’
Amendment 443 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – subparagraph 2 – point c
Article 43 – subparagraph 2 – point c
(c) a first subsequent application has been lodged within one year of the decision of the determining authority on the first application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision which would result in the applicant’s imminent removal from the Member State, pending the finalisation of the decision declaring that application inadmissible in cases where it is immediately clear to the determining authority that no new elements have been presented in accordance with Article 42(4)’
Amendment 457 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 469 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 53 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The examination before a court or tribunal shall be through written submissions, unless the court or tribunal consider a hearing necessary for the examination referred to in subparagraph 3 of this Article.
Amendment 472 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 4
Article 53 – paragraph 4
4. AWhere such a hearing takes place, applicants shall be provided with interpretation for the purpose of a hearing before the competent court or tribunal where such a hearing takes place and whereif appropriate communication cannot otherwise be ensured.
Amendment 477 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation only applies to all applications for international protection made in the territory of the Member States, including at the external border, in the territorial sea or in the transit zones of the Member States, and to the withdrawal of international protection.
Amendment 480 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
(a) at least maximum of one week in the case of a decision rejecting an application as inadmissible, as implicitly withdrawn or as unfounded if at the time of the decision any of the circumstances listed in Article 40(1) or (5) apply;
Amendment 487 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
(b) between a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of two monthfour weeks in all other cases.
Amendment 496 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 9
Article 53 – paragraph 9
9. Member States shall provide for only one level of appeal in relation to a decision taken in the context of the border procedure as the principle of effective judicial protection requires.
Amendment 506 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) 'final decision' means a decision on whether or not a third-country national or stateless person is granted refugee status or subsidiary protection status by virtue of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation), including a decision rejecting the application as inadmissible or a decision rejecting an application as explicitly withdrawn or abandoned and which can no longer be subject to an appeal procedure pursuant to Article 53 in the Member State concerned;
Amendment 511 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) a decision which rejects an application as inadmissible pursuant to Article 36(1)(a) [first country of asylum] or (c) [subsequent applications without new elements]; including cases in which the application has not been examined on the merits because another Member State has granted international protection to the applicant;
Amendment 515 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point d
(d) a decision which rejects a subsequent application as inadmissible, unfounded or manifestly unfounded;
Amendment 526 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the applicant shall have a time-limit of at least 5 daysbetween a minimum of two days and a maximum of one week from the date when the decision is notified to him or her to request to be allowed to remain on the territory pending the outcome of the remedy;
Amendment 572 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The applicant shall cooperate with the responsible authorities in all matters covered by this regulation in order for them to establish his or her identity as well as to register, enable the lodging of and examine the application by:
Amendment 575 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) providing fingerprints and facial imagebiometric data as referred to in Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Eurodac Regulation).35 _________________ 35 OJ L […], […], p. […].
Amendment 584 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Where an applicant refuses to cooperate by not providing the details necessary for the examination of the apphas been properly informed by the responsible authorities of his or her oblicgation and by not providing his or her fingerprints and facial image, and the responsible authorities have properly informed that person of his or hers referred to in this regulation and the consequences deriving from not adhering to these obligations, and has ensured that that person has had an effective opportunity torefuses to cooperate by not providing the details referred to in points (a) and (b) of the second paragraph of Article 27(1) or by not complying with those obligationse process of taking biometric data, his or her application shall be rejected as abandoned in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 39.
Amendment 596 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 6
Article 7 – paragraph 6
6. The applicant shall comply with obligations to report regularly to the competent authorities or, to appear before them in person without delay or at a specified time orand to remain in a designated area on its territory in accordance with Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive), as imposed by the Member State in which he or she is required to be present in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation).
Amendment 598 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 7
Article 7 – paragraph 7
7. Where it is necessary for the examinationprocessing of an application, the applicant may, in accordance with national legislation and the principle of proportionality, be required by the responsible authorities to be searched or have his or her items searched. Without prejudice to any search carried out for security reasons, a search of the applicant's person under this Regulation shall be carried out by a person of the same sex with full respect for the principles of human dignity and of physical and psychological integrity.
Amendment 613 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) their rights and obligations during the procedure, including the obligation to remain in the territory of the Member State in which they are required to be present in accordance withose under Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation);
Amendment 651 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The right to remain on the territory of a Member State shall not constitute an entitlement to a residence permit and it shall not give the applicant the right to travel to the territory of other Member States without authorisation as referred to in Article 6 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive).
Amendment 716 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The personal interview shall be recorded using audio or audio-visual means of recording. The applicant shall be informed in advance of such recording and his or her consent shall be required.
Amendment 743 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall, at the request of the applicant and as soon as possible after the application has been lodged, provide free legal assistance and representation in the administrative procedure provided for in Chapter III and in the appeal procedure provided for in Chapter V.
Amendment 760 #
(b) tThe application is considered as not having any tangibleclearly lacking substantive elements and therefore has no prospect of success;
Amendment 766 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 15 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) the appeal is considered as not having any tangible prospect of successso clearly without substance or abusive that it has no tangible prospect of success and is lodged merely to delay the enforcement of a decision resulting in his or her removal from the territory of a Member State;
Amendment 775 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
As regards point (b), the determining authority shallmay, in particular, grant access to information or sources to a legal adviser or other counsellor who has undergone a security check, insofar as the information is relevant for examining the application or for taking a decision to withdraw international protection.
Amendment 792 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may request total or partial reimbursement of any costs made if and when the applicant’s financial situation considerably improvimproves in such a way that he or she now has sufficient financial resources or where the decision to make such costs was taken on the basis of false information supplied by the applicant.
Amendment 847 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. The responsible authorities shall, as soon as possible after the arrival on the territory of the Union and not later than five working days from the moment when an unaccompanied minor makes an application, appoint a person or an organisation as a guardian.
Amendment 865 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
The responsible authorities shall not place a guardianensure that a guardian is not placed in charge of a disproportionate number of unaccompanied minors at the same time, which that would render him or her unable to perform his or her tasks effectively, and in any case of no more than 20.
Amendment 870 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall appoint entities or persons responsible for the performance of guardians' tasks and for supervising and monitoring at regular intervals that guardians perform their tasks in a satisfactory manner. Those entities or persons shall review complaints lodged by unaccompanied minors against their guardianalso have the competence to review complaints lodged by unaccompanied minors against their guardian. To this end, unaccompanied minors shall be given information in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language both orally and in a visual form, in a child-friendly manner and in a language they understand, about who these entities or persons are and how to file complaints against their guardians in confidence and safety.
Amendment 919 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – title
Article 25 – title
Making and registering an application for international protection
Amendment 920 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
An application for international protection shall be made when a third-country national or stateless person expresses a wish for international protection to officials of the determining authority or other authorities referred to in Article 5(3) or (4): (a) border guards; (b) police; (c) immigration authorities; (d) authorities responsible for detention facilities; (e) other authorities that have been entrusted by the Member States with those tasks.
Amendment 924 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 925 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26
Article 26
Amendment 928 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27
Article 27
Amendment 943 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 4
Article 27 – paragraph 4
4. The responsible authorities shall store each set of data referred to in paragraph 1 and any other relevant data collected under paragraph 2, for ten years from the date of a final decision. The data shall be erased upon expiry of that period or where it is related to a person who has acquired citizenship of any Member State before expiry of that period as soon as the Member State becomes aware that the person concerned has acquired such citizenship.
Amendment 967 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 6
Article 28 – paragraph 6
6. The responsible authorities shall store the data referred to in paragraph 4 for ten years from the date of a final decision. The data shall be erased upon expiry of that period or where it is related to a person who has acquired citizenship of any Member State before expiry of that period as soon as the Member State becomes aware that the person concerned has acquired such citizenship.
Amendment 996 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where there are indications thatMember States shall assess whether third-country nationals or stateless persons held in detention facilities or present at border crossing points, including transit zones, at external borders, mayare in need of international protection. If so, the responsible authorities shall inform them of the possibility to apply for international protection, in particular, where:
Amendment 1019 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – title
Article 31 – title
Applications on behalf of a spouse, partner, minor or dependent adult
Amendment 1021 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. An applicant may lodge an application on behalf of his or her spouse or partner in a stable and durable relationship, minors or dependent adults without legal capacity.
Amendment 1028 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1034 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Article 31 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1040 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1046 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 5
Article 31 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1052 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 8
Article 31 – paragraph 8
Amendment 1056 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 9
Article 31 – paragraph 9
Amendment 1064 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 1072 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 2
Where there are facts relating to the situation of the spouse, partner or minor which justify a separate application, that separate application shall be further examined to take a decision on its merits. If not, that separate application shall be rejected as inadmissible, without prejudice to the proper examination of any application lodged on behalf of the spouse, partner or minor.
Amendment 1089 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) wWhether the activities that the applicant was engaged in since leaving the country of origin were carried out by the applicant for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for applying for international protection, so as to assess whether those activities would expose the applicant to persecution or serious harm if returned to that country;, since leaving the country of origin, the applicant was engaged in activities for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for applying for international protection
Amendment 1092 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 33 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) whether the applicanit could reasonably be expected tof the applicant that he or she can avail himself or herself of the protection of another country where he or she could assert citizenship.
Amendment 1101 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the application is prima facie regarded as likely to be well- founded;
Amendment 1104 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – point b
Article 33 – paragraph 5 – point b
(b) the applicant has special reception needs within the meaning of Article 20 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU (Reception Conditions Directive), or is in need of special procedural guarantees as referred to in Articles 19 to 22 of this Regulation, in particular where he or she is an unaccompanied minor.
Amendment 1125 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 34 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) inform the applicants concerned within a reasonable time of the reasons for the postponement.as soon as possible about the reasoning behind the decision to temporarily postpone the final decision on the application
Amendment 1126 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 34 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
The Member State shall inform the Commission and the European Union Agency for Asylum within a reasonable time of the postponement of procedures for that country of origin. In any event, the determining authority shall conclude the examination procedure within 152 months from the lodging of an application.
Amendment 1144 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. TWhere there are indications that the grounds stated in this paragraph exist, the determining authority shall assess the admissibility of an application, in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees provided for in Chapter II, and shall reject an application as inadmissible where any of the following grounds applies:
Amendment 1149 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a country which is not a Member State is considered to be a first country of asylum for the applicant pursuant to Article 44, unless it is clear that the applicant will not be admitted orprovided that he or she shall be readmitted to that country;
Amendment 1151 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a country which is not a Member State is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant pursuant to Article 45, unless it is clear that the applicant will notprovided that he or she shall be admitted or readmitted to that country;
Amendment 1153 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 1160 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 3
Article 36 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall not apply to a beneficiary of subsidiaryinternational protection who has been resettled under an expedited procedure in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Resettlement Regulation).37 _________________ 37OJ L […], […], p. […]. 37 OJ L […], […], p. […].
Amendment 1166 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 5
Article 36 – paragraph 5
5. Where the determining authority prima facie considers that an application may be rejected as manifestly unfounded in accordance with Article 37(3), it shall not be obliged to pronounce itself on the admissibility of the application.
Amendment 1169 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 3
Article 37 – paragraph 3
3. TWhere there are indications that the grounds stated in Article 40(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) exist, the determining authority shall declare an unfounded application to be manifestly unfounded in the cases referred to in Article 40(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
Amendment 1179 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The determining authority shall reject an application as abandonedwithdrawn where:
Amendment 1180 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the applicant has not lodged his or her application in accordance with Article 28, despite having had an effective opportunity to do so and having been informed about the consequences of not lodging the application within the time- limit;
Amendment 1182 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 1186 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the applicant refuses to cooperate by not providing the necessary details referred to in points (a) and (b) of the second paragraph of Article 27(1) for the application to be examined andor by not providing his or her fingerprints and facial imagecomplying with the process of taking biometric data pursuant to Article 7(3);
Amendment 1191 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the applicant has, on more than one occasion and without reasonable explanation, not appeared for a personal interview although he was required to do so pursuant to Articles 10 to 12;
Amendment 1197 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the applicant has repeatedly, one more than one occasion, not complied with reporting duties imposed on him or her in accordance with Article 7(5).
Amendment 1202 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 2
Article 39 – paragraph 2
2. In the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1, and where the applicant has been properly informed by the responsible authorities at the beginning of the procedure of his or her obligations referred to in this regulation and the consequences deriving from not adhering to these obligations, the determining authority shall discontinue the examination of the application and send a written notice to the applicant at the place of residence or address referred to in Article 7(4), informing him or her thaabout the examination of his or decision to reject ther application has been discontinued andas implicitly withdrawn or as unfounded where the determining authority has, at the stage that the application will be definis implicitely rejected as abandoned unless the applicant reports to the determining authority within a period of one month from the date when the written notice is sentwithdrawn, already found that the applicant does not qualify for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation). .
Amendment 1208 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Article 39 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1212 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 4
Article 39 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1216 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 5
Article 39 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1220 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 39 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. In deciding on the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1, the determining authority shall ensure that such a person is not removed contrary to the principle of non-refoulement.
Amendment 1232 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding, destroying or disposing of relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or, nationality, that could have had a negative impact on the decisravel route or reasons for applying for international protection;
Amendment 1237 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) the applicant is making an application merely to delay or, frustrate or prevent the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision resulting in his or her removal from the territory of a Member State;
Amendment 1241 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point e
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point e
(e) a third country may beis considered as a safe country of origin for the applicant within the meaning of this Regulation;
Amendment 1246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the applicant may, for serious reasons, be considered a danger to the national security or public order of the Member States;
Amendment 1252 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) the applicant does not comply with the obligations set out in Article 4(1) and Article 204(3) of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Dublin Regulation), unless he or she demonstrates that his or her failure was due to circumstances beyond his or her control;
Amendment 1257 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 40 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) the application is a subsequent application, where the application is so is clearly withoutlacking substance or abusive that it has no tangibletive elements and therefore has no prospect of success.;
Amendment 1263 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 4
Article 40 – paragraph 4
4. Where the determining authority considers that the examination of the application involves issues of fact or law that are too complex to be examined under an accelerated examination procedure, it may continue the examination on the merits in accordance with Articles 34 and 37. This is without prejudice to the right of the determining authority to declare an application manifestly unfounded in accordance with Article 37(3) which shall remain valid also for the subsequent examination on the merits procedure. In that case, or where otherwise a decision cannot be taken within the time-limits referred to in paragraph 2, the applicant concerned shall be informed of the change in the procedure.
Amendment 1278 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The determining authority may, take a decision on an application at the border or in transit zones of the Member State in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees provided for in Chapter II, take a. This decision on an application at the border or in transit zones of the Member State onshall be limited to:
Amendment 1299 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 1303 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) the applicant comes from a third country which is not a Member State that is considered to beas a safe country of origin in accordance with the conditions set out inpursuant to Article 47;
Amendment 1308 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) there are reasonable grounds to consider that a third country i applicant comes from a third country which is not a Member State that is considered as a safe third country for the applicant in accordance with the conditions ofof origin pursuant to Article 45;
Amendment 1311 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) 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.
Amendment 1315 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Point (d) shall only be applied where there are serious grounds for considering that the applicant is attempting to conceal relevant elements which would likely lead to a decision refusing to grant international protection and only after the unaccompanied minor has been explicitly made aware of the consequences of concealing relevant information and provided that the applicant has been given an effective opportunity to provide substantiated justifications for his actions.
Amendment 1324 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 3
Article 42 – paragraph 3
3. The preliminary examination shall be carried out on the basis of written submissions and a personal interview in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees provided for in Chapter II. The personal interview may be dispensed with in those instances where, from the written submissions, it is clear that the application does not give rise to relevant new elements or findings or that it is clearly without substance and has no tangible prospect of success. The written submissions may be dispensed with if the subsequent application is made shortly before the removal or flight, and there are indications that it is made merely to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a decision for removal. In those cases, the applicant shall be interviewed to assess if there are any new relevant elements or findings.
Amendment 1342 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 43 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) a subsequent application has been lodged, which is not further examined pursuant to Article 42, merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a decision which would result in his or her imminent removal from that Member State;
Amendment 1353 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A third country shall be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant provided thatwhen:
Amendment 1385 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 4
Article 44 – paragraph 4
4. As regards unaccompanied minors, theThe concept of concept of first country of asylum may only be applied to unaccompanied minors where the authorities of Member States have first received from the authorities of the third country in question the assurance that the unaccompanied minor will be taken in charge by those authorities and that he or she shall immediately benefit from one of the forms of protection referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 1394 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
A third country shall be designated as a safe third country provided thatwhen:
Amendment 1408 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
The designation of third country as a safe third country, shall not exclude the possibility of indicating particular groups, based on gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion for which that particular third country shall not be considered safe.
Amendment 1410 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The concept of safe third country shall be applied: where a third country has been designated as safe third country in accordance with Article 50 or where a third country is designated as a safe third country at Union level;
Amendment 1413 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 1415 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – point b
Amendment 1417 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 45 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 1433 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 5
Article 45 – paragraph 5
5. As regards unaccompanied minors, tThe concept of safe third country may only be applied to unaccompanied minors where the authorities of the Member States have first received from the authorities of the third country in question confirmation that the unaccompanied minor shall be taken in charge by those authorities and that he or she shall immediately have access to one of the forms of protection referred to in paragraph 1(e).
Amendment 1447 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 47 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The designation of third country as a safe country of origin, shall not exclude the possibility of indicating particular groups, based on gender, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion for which that particular third country shall not be considered safe.