16 Amendments of Wim van de CAMP related to 2012/2032(INI)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that a high level of protection for asylum applicants and beneficiaries ofquick and definite decision-taking on whether to grant or not to grant international protection cannot only be achieved if the discrepancies in the proportionnumber of asylum applications and in the technical and administrative capacities inof the different Member States are not redressedin a proportionate relation;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. NotEmphasises that a significant gap remains between the actions Member States at the external borders of the Union are expected to take under the CEAS and the support available to themll Member States have the obligation to fully implement and apply Union law and international obligations on asylum; notes that Member States at the external borders of the Union face different challenges under the CEAS than Member States without external borders and hence also need different support to carry out those respective tasks adequately; points out that Article 80 TFEU requires the activation of existing measures as well as the development of new measures to assist those Member States when necessary;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the creation as from 2014 of a simpler and more flexible Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF) and underlines the need to allocate substantial and sufficient resources to support the protection of beneficiaries of international protection and asylum seekers; stresses, in this respect, the importance of including safeguards within the AMF, in order to prevent excessive allocation of funds to only one policy area at the expense of the CEAS as a whole; at the same time considers it necessary, in the context of the reform of allocation of funds in the home affairs area for the MFF 2014-2020, to as well allocate sufficient recources for border protection in order to achieve increasing solidarity in this area as well;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission's commitment to performing a comprehensive evaluation of the Dublin system in 2014, reviewing its legal, economic, social and human rights effects; points out that a review of the Dublin Regulation is currently under way and that effects of its possible changes will only become evident some time after the adoption and implemention of the revised legislative act;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considernotes that the Dublin Regulation, which governs the allocation of responsibility for asylum applications, while placing a disproportionate burden on Member States constituting entry points into the EU, does not provide the means for them to respond adequately to the administrative and financial demands involved; notes that the Dublin system as it has been applied so far has led to the unequal treatment of asylum seekers across the EU while also having an adverse impact on family reunification and integration; stresses, moreover, its shortcomings in terms of efficiency and cost-effectivenessinsufficient application of common standards has led to the unequal treatment of asylum seekers across the EU; stresses, that the Dublin system should be improved, since more than half of agreed transfers never take place and there are still multiple applications are still the rule;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses that the relevant case-law suspending transfers under the Dublin Regulation, while providing an answer to individual cases, fails to overcome the structural shortcomings of the Dublin system as a whole; welcomes, therefore, the efforts to include additional criteria in Dublin II in order to mitigate the system's unwanted adverse effect is a strong indication of poor implementation of European legal standards in some Member States and that increased efforts are needed to ensure the application of standards of EU asylum law in order to rebuild mutual trust in the compliance with these standards amongst Member States;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that joint processing does not necessarily entail a common decision, but could involve support and common processing with respect to other aspects of the asylum procedure, such as identification, preparation of first-instance procedures, interviews, or recommendations with regard to asylum decisionsassessment of the political situation in the country of origin;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Emphasises that joint processing requires a clear allocation of responsibilities between the involved Member States, in order to avoid responsibility-shifting which could leave both the authorities and the asylum- seeker in an unjustifiable legal limbo;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Stresses that a joint processing scheme should fully respect the rights of the applicants and contain strong guarantees to that end; insists that joint processing must in no circumstances be used to accelerate the asylum procedure at the expense of its quality; takes the view that joint processing could lead to more efficient asylum procedures also to the benefit of the asylum seeker, since due to increased administrative capacities his or her protection need could be recognised faster;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33 a (new)
Paragraph 33 a (new)
33 a. Insists that mutual trust is based on a shared understanding of responsibilities; stresses that the compliance with EU law is an indispensable element for trust among Member States;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Acknowledges that while compliance with international protection obligations enhances mutual trust, this cannot result in developing policies on the basis of conclusive presumpdoes not necessarily result in a uniform applications of compliancerules, given that the interpretation and application of international and EU asylum law still varies widely among Member States, as is clear from the recent ECHR and CJEU case-law relating to the Dublin Regulation; emphasises that it is the responsibility of the European Commission and the Courts to monitor and evaluate the application of asylum rules in accordance with international and EU law;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Stresses that while infringement proceedings can be appropriate under certain circumstances to ensure the proper functioning of a Member State's asylum system, they should be considered a measure of last resort and must be accompanied by support measures, operational plans and oversight mechanisms, in order to yield results and not overwhelm already burdened systems;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37 a. Stresses that visa regimes govern a multitude of entry and exit authorisations and that those entry and exit rules do not restrict the legal obligations on providing access to asylum in any way;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Notes that on the one hand restrictive visa regimes and enhanced border controls can have adverse effects on access to international protection in preventing persons in need from reaching the EU and reiterates the need to apply measures in a protection-sensitive manner; considers that on the other hand liberal visa policies can also negatively affect the timely and effective access to asylum by abusively burdening asylum systems and points to the rise in false asylum claims following the visa liberalisations for the Western Balkan in recent years;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39 a. Return Takes the view that an enhanced intra-EU solidarity also requires joint efforts in dealing with unfounded asylum claims; emphasises that a common policy on return must offer particular support to Member States who encounter political and logistical obstacles when initiating return procedures for persons whose asylum claims have been rejected; notes that the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme foresaw a Commission Communication on the Evaluation of the common policy on return for 2011; regrets that this Communication is now only expected to be adopted in 2013;