Activities of Cornelia ERNST related to 2019/2206(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation
Amendments (47)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19 and 1847 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
— having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 813 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12
Citation 12
— having regard to the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights related to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, and in particular Sharifi v. Austria of 5 December 2013 (Chamber judgment), Mohammadi v. Austria of 3 July 2014 (Chamber judgment), Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece of 21 October 2014 (Chamber judgment), and Tarakhel v. Switzerland of 4 November 2014 (Grand Chamber judgment), and M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece of 21 November 2011 (Grand Chamber judgment) related to Regulation (EC) No 343/2003;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas 2.5 million people applied for asylum in the European Union in the period 2015-2016, a fourfold increase compared to 2012-2013in 2015, 1,393,920 asylum seekers applied for international protection in the EU+; whereas in 2016 1,292,740 asylum seekers applied for international protection in the EU+; whereas in 2017, 735,005 asylum seekers applied for international protection in the EU+; whereas in 2018, 665,920 asylum seekers applied for international protection in the EU+; whereas in 2019, 738,425 asylum seekers applied for international protection in the EU+;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas there were 145 000 decisions on Dublin requests issued in 2019;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas one-third of the Member States currently play host to 90% of asylum seekers;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the Dublin regulation is based on the core assumption that asylum seekers are afforded equal rights across Member States and that each claim gets a fair examination, wherever the claim is lodged in the EU; whereas this is far from being a reality in the EU;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in the case of most asylum applications the deadlineshierarchical criteria laid down as part of Dublin procedures are not followed, the deadlines are not met and transfers are not carried out;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas studies on the implementation of the Dublin III regulation highlight routine disregard towards family provisions and incorrect application of the principle of the best interest of the child, which have resulted in unnecessary and unreasonable transfer procedures;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the provisions on dependent persons (Article 16) and the discretionary clauses (Article 17) could be widely used to support family unity;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas the preventive action provision of the Dublin III regulation (Article 33) has never been used;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C d (new)
Recital C d (new)
Cd. whereas there has been scarce use of the humanitarian and discretionary clauses; whereas these clauses provide reasonable solutions for relocations, including following disembarkations;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C e (new)
Recital C e (new)
Ce. whereas coercion in the context of the implementation of the Dublin III regulation by domestic authorities should be avoided; whereas the elimination of coercion, either to achieve a transfer or in relation to detention, would minimise human suffering and considerably reduce financial and operational costs of transfers;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C f (new)
Recital C f (new)
Cf. whereas administrative arrangements concluded between Germany and different Member States raise legal concerns, including on the deprivation of procedural safeguards entitled under the Dublin regulation, access to the asylum procedure post- transfer and compliance with human rights; whereas the informal arrangement by which Dublin family transfers from Greece to Germany were capped at 70 persons per month for a certain period of time has caused great human suffering by delaying family reunification;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C g (new)
Recital C g (new)
Cg. whereas there is lack of compliance as regards procedural guarantees and safeguards for asylum seekers, especially for children; whereas adequate information is not systematically and consistently provided;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C h (new)
Recital C h (new)
Ch. whereas the length of the procedures and the lack of predictable outcomes coupled with poor reception conditions and social precarity have impacts on the well being of the asylum- seekers who in many cases have experiences traumatic experiences back home and/or on their way to reach the EU;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there have been significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, including during the COVID-19 crisis, undermining the right to international protection and leading to violations of fundamental rights; whereas some of the flaws are inherent to the design of the Dublin regulation and can not be solved through implementation alone ;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas flaws in the implementation of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU), the recast Reception Directive (2013/33/EU) and the recast Qualification directive (2011/95/EU) have had an impact on the implementation of the Dublin regulation; whereas the European Commission should strengthen its work to ensure Member states compliance with these Directives, including through infringement procedures;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas secondary movements are largely due to asylum-seekers social connections with specific countries, protection-based concerns, health reasons and systematic deficiencies in the asylum systems where applications are made;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
Dc. whereas the use of detention and coercive measures raise concerns on the asylum seekers' right to liberty, dignity and physical integrity;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)
Recital D d (new)
Dd. whereas the direct and indirect costs of implementing the Dublin III regulation represented approximately 1 billion euros in 2014 according to the European Commission; whereas these costs were estimated at 2.5-4.9 billion by the EPRS in 2018;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Incorporating the principle of solidarity into the management of asylum seekersCommon European Asylum System
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Dublin system places a significant burden on a minority of Member States, in particular when influxes of migrants occur; takes the view that the EU therefore needs adisproportionate responsibility on a minority of Member States; takes the view that the EU therefore needs fairer rules for allocation of responsibility and/or a permanent solidarity mechanism which makes for fair sharing of burdens and responsibility among Member States, including through relocation on the basis of fair, clear and objective criteria of asylum seekers who are manifestly eligible for asylum;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that ad hoc agreements are no substitute for a harmonised and sustainable policy at EU level; deplores the fact thatRecalls its adopted legislative Resolution on the Dublin IV recast adopted on 6 November 2017; deplores the fact that the Council did not adopt a position on this recast and therefore blocked efforts to overhaul the Dublin III Regulation have been blocked in the Council;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Restates its full support to the position adopted by the European Parliament on the Dublin IV recast that was proposing a system based on a fair sharing of responsibility through a permanent and automatic relocation mechanism without thresholds;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management tool provided foras set out in Article 33 didhas not provide effective support to the Member States, nor did it offer a response to the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis; considers that a solidarity-based crisis management mechanism, endowed with a financial instrument managed by the Commission, should be established to ensure continuity of the right of asylum in the EU under the best possible conditionsbeen applied to date; notes also the provisions set out in the Temporary Protection Directive that aimed at dealing with mass influxes of people in need of international protection, that has yet to be invoked;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Member States to makexpand the use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 when exceptional circumstances so warrant, for example to relocate asylum seekers currently living in the Greek hotspots in an atmosphere of extreme tension and to provide decent reception conditionto address challenging situations, including as a tool for responsibility-sharing in situations of large numbers of spontaneous arrivals and in the specific context of sea arrivals and disembarkation procedures;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. HighlightNotes the significant operational backing for Dublin procedures provided by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in the hotspots; calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the work of EASO staff by allowing the interviews iner to speak a language other than that of the country in which they are conducted; calls for the establishment of a European Asylum Agency, with sufficient financial and human resources while ensuring that the applicant is provided with interpretation in a language he or she understands; stresses the need for EASO to abide in its operational work with the highest standards and put the interests of applicants in need of international protection, including the best interest of the child, at the heart of its work;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Urges adequate organisation and staffing of the European Dublin units to streamline the completion of Dublin- related procedures, particularly those related to establishing family links and the application of other criteria which link an asylum-seeker to a particular Member State;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of the measures taken to implement the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of children, victims of trafficking and othe mostr vulnerable persons;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out the worrying human cost of the Dublin regulation on asylum- seekers whereby transfers to the first country of entry can create severe anxiety for asylum-seekers whose mental health is already weakened by the traumas from what they have experienced back home and on the journey, as well as often poor reception conditions in the first Member State of entry;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to monitor compliance with the hierarchy of criteria more closely; regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applyingenable a better use of the family reunification criterion and toprovisions, including by harmonise theing standards of proof requiredacross Member States towards less stringent standards; calls on the Member States and the Commission to protect the best interests of the children and to clarify, who should never be detained because of his or her family immigration status ; calls to expand the sources used for the crmoniteoria for keeping children in detentionng and identification of unlawful practices to include information provided by international and non-governmental organisations where it is reliable, up-to- date and specific;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses that Dublin transfers must be carried out in a way that under no circumstances exposes individuals to a risk of refoulement or inhumane or degrading treatment, irrespective of whether the asylum system of the country of return is affected by systemic deficiencies;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Simplify procedures and significantly, reduce processing times and uphold the right to an effective remedy
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the number of transfer procedures has increased significantly, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplornotes, however, the fact that in only 11% of cases are transfers actually carried out, a further factor in the permanent overloading of asylum systems; stress; notes the lack of cooperation and information-sharing between Member States; regards efforts to combat secencourages Member States to apply the discretiondary movements as essential in order to reduce the number of transfer requests; proposes thatclause of Article 17 more swiftly, in cases where it becomes evident that transfers can not be carried out, or where the coinditions which trigger transfer procedures be clarified and harmonisedvidual situation of the applicant requires so;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance in connection with Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots, would simplify the process of obtaining asylum would enhance rights-compliant procedures and improve decision- making; calls on the Member States to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on the complex Dublin procedures, to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 4
Subheading 4
A single asylum applicationrights-centred application of Dublin arrangements in the EU
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. StressNotes that the principle of a single asylum application in the EU is consistently flouted, a state of affairs at odds withthat was the very purpose of the Dublin III Regulation; consider is that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information on a European database such as Eurodac, in order to speed up procedures and prevent multiple asylum applications, while protecting personal datampered by various factors, including poor reception conditions in many first Member States of arrivals due to overcrowding, lengthy and failed family reunification procedures, xenophobia in countries of arrivals, as well as flaws in asylum procedures in some countries;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Deplores the fact that the Commission has still not published its Article 46 assessment report; calls on the Commission to ensure thatavoid applying the Dublin III Regulation is implemented more effectivelyn an ineffective, costly or unreasonable manner;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls on the European Commission and Member States to consult non-governmental organisations, including migrant and refugee organisations representing persons subject to the Dublin regulation;