BETA

4 Amendments of Ska KELLER related to 2015/0125(NLE)

Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 8
(8) According to data of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex), the Central and Eastern Mediterranean route were the main areas for irregular border crossing into the Union in 2014. In 2014, more than 170 000 migrants arrived in Italy alone in an irregular manner, representing an increase of 277% compared to 2013, including more than 26100 children, of whom around 13000 were unaccompanied (7.6% of the total migrants arrived). A steady increase was also witnessed by Greece with more than 50 000 irregular migrants reaching the country, representing an increase of 153% compared to 2013. Statistics for the first months of 2015 confirm this clear trend in respect of Italy. From January to June 2015 Italy witnessed a 5% increase of irregular border crossings as compared to the same period in the previous year. In addition, Greece has faced in the first months of 2015 a sharp increase in the number of irregular border crossings, corresponding to a more than 50% of the total number of irregular border crossings in 2014 (almost 28 000 in the first four months of 2015six-fold increase in comparison with the same period in the previous year and nearly a 140% increase compared to the previous year as a whole (76 293 from January to June 2015, according to data by Frontex, in comparison to a total number of almost 55 000 in 2014). A significant proportion of the total number of irregular migrants detected in these two regions included migrants of nationalities which, based on the Eurostat data, meet a high Union level recognition rate (in 2014, the Syrians and the Eritreans, for which the Union recognition rate is more than 75%, represented more than 40% of the irregular migrants in Italy and more than 50% of them in Greece; from January to June 2015 Syrians and Eritreans represented 30% of arrivals to Italy and nearly 60% to Greece). According to Eurostat, 30 505 Syrians were found to be irregularly present in Greece in 2014 compared to 8 220 in 2013.
2015/07/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 25
(25) When deciding which applicants in clear need of international protection should be relocated from Italy and Greece, priority should be given to vulnerable applicants and among those special attention should be given to unaccompanied children, within the meaning of Articles 21 and 22 of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council10. In this respect, special needs of applicants, including health, should be of primary concern. The best interests of the child should always be a primary consideration. 10 Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p.96).
2015/07/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 26 a (new)
(26a) A core lesson to be learned from the pilot project on relocation from Malta (EUREMA) is that expectations and preferences should be managed properly. As an initial step, applicants should be given the possibility to express their preferences. They should rank five Member States among the Member States by order of preference and support their preferences by elements such as family ties, social ties and cultural ties such as language skills, previous stay, previous studies and previous work experience. This should take place in the course of the initial processing. As a second step, the respective Member States should be informed about the applicants’ preferences. They then should be given the possibility to indicate their preferences for applicants among those applicants who had expressed their preference for the Member State concerned. Member States should support their preferences by aspects such as family, social and cultural ties. Liaison officers appointed by Member States could facilitate the procedure by conducting interviews with the respective applicants. Applicants should also have the possibility to consult with other actors such as NGOs, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration. In particular, unaccompanied children should have access to child-rights organizations. Finally, Italy and Greece, with the assistance of EASO, should take a decision to relocate each of the applicants to a specific Member State by taking the preferences as much as possible into account. UNHCR should be consulted on their best practices developed in resettlement including on the management of preferences and specific qualifications.
2015/07/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital 30 a (new)
(30a) Consent of applicants or beneficiaries of international protection to relocation is an established principle in EU law, enshrined in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 and by analogy in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and in Article 17(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, in case of use of the discretionary clauses in the Dublin procedure. According to Article 10 of this Decision, Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 is fully applicable to this Decision. Consent is of particular importance in case the preferences of an applicant cannot be taken into account. If applicants would be transferred to another Member State against their will, secondary movement is a likely consequence. Therefore, in this case, the person should not be relocated but instead another person should get the opportunity to be transferred to the respective Member State. Since the number of applicants eligible for relocation is significantly higher than the places available for relocation, a shortage of applicants for relocation will not occur. In addition, refusal to be relocated is expected to be rare due to the high incentives for applicants to participate in relocation, as, even in case of relocation to a Member State not belonging to his or her preferences, it would allow for quick integration opportunities in another Member State with reception capacity and high standard reception conditions readily available. Or. en Justification
2015/07/14
Committee: LIBE