Activities of Sylvie GUILLAUME related to 2016/0224(COD)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU
Amendments (135)
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) ‘In order to guarantee the rights of the applicant, a decision concerning his or her application should be given in writing. Where the decision does not grant international protection, the applicant should be given reasons in fact and in law, information on the consequences of the decision and the modalities for challenging it. Without prejudice to the applicant’s right to remain and to the principle of non-refoulement, such a decision may include, or may be issued together with, a return decision issued in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31a
Recital 31a
(31a) In orWhere a Member State considers tohat it would increase the efficiency of procedures and to reduce the risk of absconding and the likelihood of unauthorised movements, if there should bare no procedural gasteps between the issuance of a negative decision on an application for international protection and of a return decision. A, it may issue 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 intThis possibility should in no way restrict Member States’ discretion as regards the use of Article 6(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 1a or their discretion to issue residence permits or other authorisations under national protection or, if it is a separate act, be issued at the same time and together with the negative decision.’law granting a right to stay on the territory. _________________ 1a Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code).
Amendment 84 #
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 be able to 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 in that Member State is lower than 210% of the total number of decisions for that third country. Where a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data and taking into account the guidance note pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation XX/XX on the European Asylum Agency, or where the applicant belongs to a specific category of persons for whom the low recognition rate cannot be considered as representative of their protection needs due to a specific persecution ground, examination of the application should not be accelerated. Cases where a third country may be considered as a safe country of origin or a safe third country for thApplications from unaccompanied minors, families with children, and other vulnerable applicant withs including the meaning of this Regulation should remain applicable as a separate ground for respectively the accelerated examination procedure or the inadmissible procedureose with special procedural or reception needs should also not be accelerated.
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) ‘Many applications for international protection are made at the external border or in a transit zone of a Member State, often by persons apprehended in connection with unauthorisedirregular crossings of the external border or disembarked following a search and rescue operation. In order to conduct identification, security and health screening at the external border and direct the third-country nationals and stateless persons concerned to the relevant procedures, a screening is necessary. There should be seamless and efficient links between all stages of the relevant procedures for all irregular arrivals. After the screening, tThird-country nationals and stateless persons should be channelled to the appropriate asylum or return procedure, or refused entry. A pre- entry phase consisting of screening and border procedures for asylum and return should therefore be established.’, or granted entry in accordance with Article 6(5) of the Schengen Borders Code.
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40a
Recital 40a
(40a) ‘ The purpose of the border procedure for asylum and return should be to quickly assess applications, at the external borders whether applications are unfounded or inadmissible and to, to determine whether they are well founded or unfounded. If unfounded, the procedure should allow for a swiftly return of those with no right to stay and who have been issued a return decision, while ensuring that those with well-founded claims are channelled into the regular procedure and provided quick access to international protection. Member States should therefore be able to require applicants for international protection to stay at the external border or in a transit zone in order to assess the admissibility of applications. In well-defined circumstances, Member States should be able to provide for the examination of the merits of an application and, in the event of rejection of the application, for tha decision on the possible return of the third-country nationals and stateless persons concerned at the externconcerned in a border procedure. However a border procedures should not be applied to unaccompanied minors, families with children, and other vulnerable applicants including those with special procedural border reception needs.
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40b
Recital 40b
(40b) Member State should be able to assess applications in a border procedure where the applicant is a danger to national security or public order, where the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision and where it is likely that the application is unfounded because the applicant is of a nationality for whom the number of decisions granting international protection in that Member State is lower than 210% of the total number of decisions for that third country. In other cases, such as same way, when the applicant is from a safe country of origin or a safe third country, the use of the border procedure should be optional for the Member States.
Amendment 116 #
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 apcomplicants at or close to the external border or transit zones, in accordance withce with the provisions of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Reception Conditions Directive] as regards accommodation for applicants. 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 ofin 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. 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 atThey should notify the Commission of the specific locations at which the border cprossing points, or sections of the external border, where the majority of the number of applications for international proteccedures will be carried out. In cases where the border procedure is applied and the capacity of the locations 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 outs 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. 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 125 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40d
Recital 40d
(40d) In case where the use of the border procedure is an obligation, Member States should by way of exception not be required to apply itMember States should not apply the border procedure for the examination of applications for international protection from nationals of a third country that does not cooperate sufficiently on readmission, since a swift return of the persons concerned, following rejection of their applications, would be unlikely in that case. The determination of whether a third country is cooperating sufficiently on readmission should be based on the procedures set out in Article 25a of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009.
Amendment 132 #
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, and without prejudice to the independence of the judiciary, 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 thatable the examination procedure isto be concluded and that subsequently, if relevant, thea decision on the first level of appeal isto be issued within this maximum 12 weeks. After that period, if the Member State nevertheless failed to take the relevant decisions, the applicant should in principle be authorised to enter the territory of the Member State. Entry into the territory should however not be authorised where the applicant has no right to remain, where he or she has not requested to be allowed to remain for the purpose of an appeal procedure, or where a court or tribunal has decided that he or she should not be allowed to remain pending the outcome of an appeal procedure. In such cases, to ensure continuity between the asylum procedure and the return procedure, the return procedure should also be carried out in the context of a border procedure for a period not exceeding 12 weeks. This period should be counted starting from the moment in which the applicant, third- country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain or is no longer allowed to remainWhere a final decision is not taken within 12 weeks, the border procedure shall end and the applicant shall be allowed to enter the territory of the Member State.
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40f
Recital 40f
(40f) While the border procedure forAdministrative detention during the examination of an application for international protection can be applied without recourse to detention,should remain a measure of last resort. Any detention decision must be based on an individual assessment and determined to be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to a legitimate purpose. 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.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 g
Recital 40 g
(40g) When an application is rejected in the context of the border procedure, the applicant, third-country national or stateless person concerned should be immediately subject to a return decision or, where the conditions ofMember State in question may issue the applicant a return decision provided that it respects Article 145 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council10 are met, to a refusal of entry. To guarantee the equal treatment of all third-country nationals whose application has been rejected in the context of the border procedure, where a Member State has decided not to apply the provisions of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] by virtue of Article 2(2), point (a), of that Directive and does not issue a return decision to the third-country national concernedthe Directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (‘the Returns Directive’)2a and due consideration has been given in the individual case to the application of Article 8, paragraphs 2 to 5 of that Directive. The Member State may also, twhe treatment and level of protecre the conditions of the applicant, third- country national or stateless person concerned should be in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] and be equivalent to those applicable to persons subject to a return decision. _________________ 10Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 077 23.3.2016, p. 1Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council are met, issue a refusal of entry without prejudice to Article 6(5) of that Regulation. _________________ 2aDirective (EU) xxx/xxx of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast).
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40 h
Recital 40 h
(40h) When applying the border procedure for carrying out return, certain provisions of the [recastthe Return Directive] should apply as these regulateto all elements of the return procedure that are not determined by this Regulation, notably those on definitions, more favourable provisions, non-refoulement, best interests of the child, family life and state of health, risk of absconding, obligation to cooperate, period for voluntary departure, return decision, removal, postponement of removal, return and removal of unaccompanied minors, entry bans, safeguards pending return, detention, conditions of detention, detention of minors and families and emergency situations. To reduce the risk of unauthorised entry and movement of illegally staying third-country nationals subject to the border procedure for carrying out return, a period for voluntary departure not exceeding 15 days may be granted to illegally staying third-country nationals, without prejudice for the possibility to voluntarily comply with the obligation to return at any moment.
Amendment 156 #
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 theihis/her 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]. AWhere 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 whoere that application was unsuccessful, and that applicant no longer has a right to remain and has not been allowed to remain, could also bthe dRetained 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 return. 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 duringurn Directive should apply. Member States may detain an applicant where other sufficient but less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively, for as short a period as possible and not exceeding the maximum duration of the border procedure for carrying ourt return.
Amendment 169 #
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 authoritya court or tribunal 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. ’may request a court or tribunal to revoke an applicant’s right to remain in such cases.
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 65
Recital 65
(65) ‘For an applicant to be able to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy against a decision rejecting an application for international protection, and where a return decision has also been issued to the applicant, all effects of theat return decision should be automatically suspended for as long as the applicant has the right to remain or has been allowed to remain on the territory of a Member State. To improve the effectiveness of procedures at the external border, while ensuring the respect of the right to an effective remedy, appeals against decisions taken in the context of the border procedure should take place only before a single level of jurisdiction of a court or tribunal.
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66
Recital 66
(66) Applicants should, in principle, have the right to remain on the territory of a Member State until the time-limit for lodging an appeal before a court or tribunal of first instance expires, and, where such a right is exercised within the set time-limit, pending the outcome of the appeal. It is only in the limited cases set out in this Regulation, where applications are likely to be unfounded, that the applicant should not have an automatic right to remain for the purpose of the appeal.
Amendment 182 #
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 pendinga court or tribunal is requested to revoke the applicant’s right to remain for the purpose of 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 185 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66b
Recital 66b
(66b) In order to ensure effective returns, applicants should not have athe efficacy of the asylum and return procedures, a court or tribunal should be able to revoke an applicant’s right to remain on the Member State’s territory at the stage of a second or further level of appeal before a court or tribunal against a negative decision on the application for international protection, without prejudice to the possibility for a court or tribunal to allow the applicant to remain. Furthermore, Member States should not grant applicants the possibility to lodge a further appeal against a first appeal decision in respect of a decision taken in a border procedure.
Amendment 191 #
(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 accompanyingany related return decision, and with a view to accelerating the examination of the case and reducing the burden on the competent judicial authorities, it should be possible that such decisions should bare subject to common proceedings before the same court or tribunal.
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 66d a (new)
Recital 66d a (new)
(66d a)In order to ensure compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, upon irregular arrival at the EU’s external borders, during border surveillance, screening, the asylum procedure or the return procedure, each Member State should establish a monitoring mechanism and put in place adequate safeguards for the independence of that mechanism, in particular by involving national human rights institutions, national ombudspersons, international organisations or relevant non- governmental organisations in the management and operation of the mechanism. The monitoring mechanism should cover in particular the respect for fundamental rights in relation to border surveillance, the screening, asylum and return procedures, as well as the respect for the applicable rules regarding detention and compliance with the principle of non-refoulement as referred to in Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) should establish general guidance as to the establishment and the independent functioning of such monitoring mechanism. Member States should furthermore be allowed to request the support of the FRA for developing their national monitoring mechanism. Member States should also be allowed to seek advice from the FRA with regard to establishing the methodology for this monitoring mechanism and with regard to appropriate training measures. The independent monitoring mechanism should be in addition and without prejudice to the monitoring of fundamental rights provided by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s fundamental rights monitors provided for in Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, the monitoring mechanism for the purpose of monitoring the operational and technical application of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as set out in Article 14 of Regulation (EU) xxxx/xxxx [EU Asylum Agency Regulation] and without prejudice to monitoring of fundamental rights carried out by existing national or international monitoring bodies. The Member States should investigate allegations of the breach of fundamental rights during border surveillance, the screening, asylum and return procedures, including by ensuring that complaints are dealt with promptly, expeditiously and capable of leading to the identification and sanction of those responsible in an appropriate manner.
Amendment 201 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 5
Article 27 – paragraph 5
Amendment 212 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 a
Article 35 a
Where an application is rejected as inadmissible, unfounded or manifestly unfounded with regard to both refugee status and subsidiary protection status, or as implicitly or explicitly withdrawn, Member States shallmay issue a return decision that respects Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive]. The return decision shall be issued as part of the decision rejecting the application for international protection or, inAs it is a separate decision, the return decision shall be issued as a separate act. Where tThe return decision is issued as a separate act, it shallmay be issued at the same time and together with the decision rejecting the application for international protection.’
Amendment 217 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
Article 40 – point a – paragraph 1 – point i
(i) ‘ the applicant is of a nationality or, in the case of stateless persons, a former habitual resident of a third country for which the proportion of decisions by the relevant national determining authority granting international protection is, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data, 20% or lower,Eurostat data, 10% or lower, unless the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, a minor, an accompanying family member of a minor, or a vulnerable applicant, including those with special procedural or reception needs, or unless a significant change has occurred in the third country concerned since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data or the applicant belongs to a category of persons for whom the proportion of 210% or lower cannot be considered as representative for their protection needs;’
Amendment 221 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 40 – point b – paragraph 5 – point c
Amendment 229 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Following the screening procedure carried out in accordance with Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Screening Regulation], and provided that the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter Member States’ territory, a Member A Member State may examine an application in a border procedure where that application has been made by a third- country national or stateless person who does not fulfil the conditions for entry in the territory of a Member State as set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399. The border procedure may take place:
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) following apprehension in direct connection with an unauthorised crossing of the external borderirregular border crossing;
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 260 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Article 41 – paragraph 3
Amendment 272 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – first paragraph
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – first paragraph
4. A Member State may decideshall not to apply paragraph 3a border procedure to nationals or stateless persons who are habitual residents of third countries for which that Member State has submitted a notification to the Commission in accordance with Article 25a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009.
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – second subparagraph
Where, following the examination carried out in accordance with Article 25a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, the Commission considers that the third country is cooperating sufficiently, the Member State shallmay again apply the provisions of paragraph 3.
Amendment 278 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – third subparagraph
Article 41 – paragraph 4 – third subparagraph
Amendment 290 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 5
Article 41 – paragraph 5
5. The border procedure may onlyshall not be applied to unaccompanied minors and to minors below the age of 12 and their family members in the cases referred to in Article 40(5) (b)with their family members.
Amendment 296 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 6
Article 41 – paragraph 6
Amendment 319 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point a
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point a
(a) the determining authority considers that the grounds for rejecting an application as inadmissible or for applying the accelerated examination procedure are not applicable or no longer applicable;
Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point b
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – point b
(b) the necessary support cannot be provided to applicants with special procedural needs in the locations referred to in paragraph 14;re are vulnerable applicants with specific reception needs or in need of special procedural guarantees
Amendment 334 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 9 – subparagraph 2
In such cases, the competent authority shall authorise the applicant to enter the territory of the Member State, if he or she has not already been authorised to do so.
Amendment 336 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 10
Article 41 – paragraph 10
Amendment 343 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 1
11. The border procedure shall be as short as possible while at the same time enabling a complete and fair examination of the claims. It shall encompass the decision referred to in paragraph 2 and 3 and anymay include a decision on an appeal if applicable and shall be completed within 12 weeks from when the application is registered. FIf, following that period, the first instance decision and the decision on appeal, if applicable, have not been taken, the applicant shall be authorised to enter the Member State’s territory except when Article 41a(1) is applicableif he or she has not already been to do so.
Amendment 348 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 11 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 359 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) A key consideration as to whether an application for international protection is well-founded is the safety of the applicant in his or her country of origin. Having regard to the fact that Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) aims to achieve a high level of convergence on the qualification of third- country nationals and stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, this Regulation establishes common criteria for designating third countries as safe countries of origin and, in view of the need to strengthen the application of the safe country of origin concept as an essential tool to support the swift processing of applications that are likely to be unfounded, this Regulation sets out an EU common list of safe countries of origin.
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1– point b
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1– point b
(b) a court or tribunal has revoked the applicant has no’s right to remain in accordance with Article 54 and has not requested to be allowed to remain for the purposes of an appeal procedure within the applicable time-limit;
Amendment 364 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 2
Article 41 – paragraph 12 – subparagraph 2
In such cases, where the applicant has been subject to a return decision issued in accordance with the Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive] or a refusal of entry in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/399, Article 41a shallmay be applyied.
Amendment 376 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 13
Article 41 – paragraph 13
13. During the examination of applications subject to a border procedure, the applicants shall be keptmay be accommodated at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones provided that the conditions of reception comply with Directive (EU) XXX/XXX. Each Member State shall notify to the Commission, [two months after the date of the application of this Regulation] at the latest, the locations where the border procedure will be carried out, at the external borders, in the proximity to the external border or transit zones, including when applying paragraph 3 and ensure that the capacity of those locations is sufficient to process the applications covered by that paragraph. Any changes in the identification of the locations at which the border procedure is applied, shall be notified to the Commission two months in advance of the changes taking effect.
Amendment 378 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48 a (new)
Recital 48 a (new)
(48a) The EU's common list of safe countries of origin should not have the aim of reducing the number of asylum seekers from countries which combine a large number of applications with a low recognition rate. The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin should be based solely on an assessment of whether that country's situation conforms to the common criteria for designating third countries as safe countries of origin that are laid down in this Regulation.
Amendment 383 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) The Commission, assisted by the European Union Agency for Asylum, should regularly review the situation in third countries designated as safe third countries at Union level or that are on the EU common list of safe countries of origin. In case of sudden change for the worse in the situation of such a third country, the Commission should be able to suspend the designation of that third country as safe third country at Union level or the presence of that third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin for a limited period of time by means of a delegated act in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Moreover, in this case, the Commission should propose an amendment for the third country not to be designated as a safe third country at Union level any longer or to remove that third country from the EU common list of safe country of origin within 36 months of the adoption of delegated act suspending the third country.
Amendment 389 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 14
Article 41 – paragraph 14
14. In situations where the capacity of the locations notified by Member States pursuant to paragraph 143 is temporarily insufficient to process the applicants covered by paragraph 3border procedures, Member States may designate other locations within the territory of the Member State and upon notification to the Commission accommodate applicants there, on a temporary basis and for the shortest time necessary.
Amendment 393 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 52
Recital 52
(52) The Commission, with the assistance of the European Union Agency for Asylum, should regularly review the situation in third countries that have been removed from the EU common list of safe countries of origin or safe third countries, including where. Where a third country has been removed from the EU common list of safe countries of origin, a Member State may notifiesy the Commission thatwhere it considers, based on a substantiated assessment, that, following changes in the situation of that third country, it fulfils again the conditionsonce again fulfils the criteria set out in Annex 1 to this Regulation for being designated as safe. In such a case, Member States could only designate that third country as a safe country of origin or a safe third country at the national level as long as the Commission does not raise objections to that designation. Whereincluded in the EU common list of safe countries of origin. The Commission shall examine any such notification by a Member State and if appropriate, submit a proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council to amend the EU common list of safe countries of origin accordingly. If the Commission consdeciders that these conditions are fulfilled, it may propose an amendment to the designation of safnot to submit such a proposal, Member States shall not designate thirdat countries at Union level or to the EU common list ofy as a safe countriesy of origin so as to add the third countryat national level.
Amendment 400 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 1
Article 41 a – paragraph 1
1. Third-country nationals and stateless persons whose application is rejected in the context of the procedure referred to in Article 41 and who have not been authorised to enter the territory of the Member State, shall not be authorised to enter the territory of theat Member State, without prejudice to Article 6(5) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/399.
Amendment 404 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
Article 41 a – paragraph 2
2. Persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be keptaccommodated 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 period shall start from when the applicant, third-country national or stateless person no longer has a right to remain and no longer has a right to remain or has had his or her right to remain revoked by a court or tribunal. Unaccompanied minors, minors with their families, and other vulnerable groups including persons with specific reception needs or isn not allowed to remaieed of special procedural guarantees shall be exempted from the border procedure for carrying out return.
Amendment 410 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 3
Article 41 a – paragraph 3
3. For the purposes of this Article, Article 3, Article 4(1), Articles 5 to 7, Article 8(1) to (5), Article 9(2) to (4), Articles 10 to 13, Article 15, Article 17(1), Article 18(2) to (4) and Articles 19 to 21 of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [recast Return Directive] shall applyWhen applying the border procedure for carrying out return, the Return Directive applies to all elements of the return procedure that are not regulated in this Article.
Amendment 418 #
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 15of 30 days.
Amendment 423 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 5
Article 41 a – paragraph 5
5. PA persons referred to in paragraph 1 who haves been detained during the procedure referred to in Article 41 and who no longer haves a right to remain and are not allowed to remainor who has had her/ his right to remain revoked by a court or tribunal 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.
Amendment 426 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 6
Article 41 a – paragraph 6
6. PA persons referred to in paragraph 1 who no longer haves a right to remain and are not allowed to remainor who has had her/his right to remain revoked by a court or tribunal, and who wereas not detained during the procedure referred to in Article 41, may be detained if there is a risk of absconding within the meaning of Directive XXX/XXX/EU [Return Directive], if they/she avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process or they pose a risk to public policy, public security or national security. Detention should remain a measure of last resort and may be used if no other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively. Any detention decision shall be taken on the basis of an individual assessment, and shall be determined to be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to a legitimate purpose.
Amendment 433 #
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, and only as long as removal arrangements are in progresa reasonable prospect of removal exists 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 435 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 a – paragraph 8
Article 41 a – paragraph 8
Amendment 442 #
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 merand a court or tribunal has determined that it has been lodged solely 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 447 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) a decision to channel the applicant into an accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 40;
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a b (new)
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a b (new)
(ab) a decision to channel the applicant into a border procedure in accordance with Article 41;
Amendment 449 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a c (new)
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a c (new)
(ac) a decision to apply detention during a border procedure;
Amendment 450 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) a decision rejecting an application as unfounded or manifestly unfounded in relation to both refugee and subsidiary protection status;
Amendment 460 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Return decisions shallmay be appealed before the same court or tribunal and within the same judicial proceedings and the same time-limits as decisions referred to in points (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Amendment 462 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2
Article 53 – paragraph 2
2. Persons recognised as eligible for subsidiary protection shall have the right to an effective remedy against a decision considering their application unfounded in relation to refugee status. Where subsidiary protection status granted by a Member State offers the same rights and benefits as refugee status under Union and national law, the appeal against that decision in that Member State may be considered as inadmissible where provided for in national law.
Amendment 467 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 3
Article 53 – paragraph 3
3. An effective remedy within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, at least an oral hearing before a court or tribunal of first instance, including, where applicable, an examination of the international protection needs pursuant to Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX [Qualification Regulation].
Amendment 475 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 6
Article 53 – paragraph 6
Amendment 478 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – introductory part
7. Member States shall lay down the following time-limits in their national lawin their national law time-limits of at least 15 working days from receipt of the notification of a decision rejecting an application, for applicants to lodge appeals against the decisions referred to in paragraph 1:.
Amendment 479 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point a
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b
Amendment 490 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b a (new)
Article 53 – paragraph 7 – point b a (new)
(ba) Member States may extend the time limits laid down in this paragraph if the specific circumstances of the application make it necessary.
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 9
Article 53 – paragraph 9
Amendment 499 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 1
Article 54 – paragraph 1
1. The effects of a return decision shall be automatically suspended for as long as an applicant has a right to remain or is allowed to remain in accordanceuntil the time-limit within which to exercise their right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal of first instance has expired and, where such a right has been exercised within this Articlee time-limit, pending the outcome of the remedy.
Amendment 503 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 2
Article 54 – paragraph 2
Amendment 509 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The applicant shall not have the right to remain pursuant to paragraph 2 where the competentA court or tribunal shall have the power to revoke the applicant’s right to remain pursuant to paragraph 1, in relation to a second level of appeal, upon request by the determining authority, where that determining authority has taken one of the following decisions:
Amendment 510 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) a decision which rejects an application as unfounded or manifestly unfounded if at the time of the decision any of the circumstances listed in Article 40(1) and (5) apply [including safe country of origin] or in the cases subject to the border procedure;
Amendment 513 #
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];
Amendment 514 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point d
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point d
Amendment 516 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point e
Article 54 – paragraph 3 – point e
Amendment 519 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 4
Article 54 – paragraph 4
Amendment 525 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. For the purpose of paragraph 42, the following conditions shall apply:
Amendment 527 #
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 days 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 remedyrequest to revoke the right to remain shall be made by the determining authority within 5 days from the date when the applicant has lodged her/his appeal;
Amendment 529 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point d – point i
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point d – point i
(i) until the time-limit for requesting a court or tribunal toa court or tribunal has ruled on whether or not he/she shall be allowed to remain has expired;on the territory.
Amendment 530 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point d – point ii
Article 54 – paragraph 5 – point d – point ii
Amendment 534 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 6
Article 54 – paragraph 6
6. In cases of subsequent applications, by way of derogation from paragraph 6, point (d)and only where the application is made within one year of the decision by the determining authority ofn this Articlee first application, Member States may provide in national law that the applicant shall not have a right to remain, without prejudice to the respect of the principle of non-refoulement, if the appeal has been made 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, that a court or tribunal, acting on a request from the determining authority, may revoke the applicant’s right to remain in cases where it is immediately clear to the court that no new elements have been presented in accordance with Article 42(4).
Amendment 538 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 7
Article 54 – paragraph 7
7. An applicant who lodges a further appeal against a first or subsequent appeal decision shall notmay have athe right to remain on the territory of the Member State, without prejudice to the possibility for a court or tribunal to allow the applicant to remain upon the applicant’s request or acting ex officio.’ revoked by a court or tribunal, acting on a request from the determining authority.
Amendment 540 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 54 a (new)
Article 54 a (new)
Amendment 1351 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A third country shallmay be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant provided that:
Amendment 1356 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the applicant has enjoyed protectionbeen recognised as a refugee in accordance with the Geneva Convention in that country before travelling to the Union and he or she can still avail himself or herself of that protection; or
Amendment 1359 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 44 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the applicant otherwise has enjoyed sufficienteffective protection in that countryequivalent to the level of protection enjoyed by refugees before travelling to the Union and he or she can still avail himself or herself of that protection.
Amendment 1361 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. The determining authority shallmay consider that an applicant enjoys sufficienteffective protection within the meaning of paragraph 1(b) provided that it is satisfied that:
Amendment 1362 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and that there is no deprivation of liberty without due process;
Amendment 1364 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(c a) there is no risk that the applicant would be sent by the third country to another third country in which he or she would not receive effective protection;
Amendment 1368 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point f
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point f
(f) there is appropriate access to the labour market, reception facilities, healthcare and education; and
Amendment 1370 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
(f a) there is access to means of subsistence sufficient to maintain an adequate standard of living;
Amendment 1371 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point f b (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point f b (new)
Amendment 1375 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point g
(g) there is a right to family reunification in accordance with international human rights standards., and
Amendment 1376 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Article 44 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
(g a) the third country has acceded to international refugee instruments and basic human rights instruments and complies with their standards in practice.
Amendment 1379 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 3
Article 44 – paragraph 3
3. Before his or her application can be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 36(1)(a), the applicant shall be allowed to challenge the application of the first country of asylum concept in light of his or her particular circumstances when lodging the application and during the admissibility interview.
Amendment 1382 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 4
Article 44 – paragraph 4
4. As regards unaccompanied minors, tThe concept of first country of asylum may only be applied 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 1shall not be applied to unaccompanied minors.
Amendment 1392 #
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 designatmay be considered asto a safe third country provided that:
Amendment 1400 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) the possibility exists to receive protection in accordance with the substantive standards of the Geneva Convention or sufficient protection as referred to in Article 44(2), as appropriatequest refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention, ratified and applied without any geographical limit.
Amendment 1405 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 45 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The assessment of whether a third country may be designated as a safe third country in accordance with this Regulation shall be based on a range of sources of information, including in particular information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum, the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and other relevant international organisations, and national or international non-governmental organisations.
Amendment 1409 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1419 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 45 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The determining authority shallmay consider a third country to be a safe third country for a particular applicant, after an individual examination of the application, only where it is satisfied of the safety of the third country for a particular applicant in accordance with the criteria established in paragraph 1 and it has established that:
Amendment 1423 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 45 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) there is a meaningful connection between the applicant and the third country in question on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country, including because the applicant has transited through that third country which is geographically close to the country of origin of the applicant;
Amendment 1427 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 4
Article 45 – paragraph 4
4. Before his or her application can be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 36(1)(b), an applicant shall be allowed to challenge the application of the concept of safe third country in light of his or her particular circumstances when lodging the application and during the admissibility interview.
Amendment 1430 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 5
Article 45 – paragraph 5
5. As regards unaccompanied minors, tThe concept of safe third country may onlyshall not be applied 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)in respect of unaccompanied minors.
Amendment 1434 #
(b) provide him or her with a document informing the authorities of the third country, in the language of that country, that the application has not been examined in substance as a consequence of the application of the concept of the safe third country.
Amendment 1438 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46
Article 46
Amendment 1443 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 1
Article 47 – paragraph 1
1. A third country may be designated as a safe country of origin in accordance with this Regulation where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is no generally no or consistent persecution as defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation), no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.
Amendment 1444 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2
Article 47 – paragraph 2
2. The assessment of whether a third country may be designated as a safe country of origin in accordance with this Regulation shall be based on a range of sources of information, including in particular information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum, the European External Action Service, the Union delegations in those countries, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe as well as other relevant, relevant international organisations and national or international non-governmental organisations, and shall take into account the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (EU Asylum Agency).
Amendment 1448 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 47 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the absence of expulsion, removal or extradition of own citizens to third countries where, inter alia, there is a serious risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or from which there is a serious risk of an expulsion, removal or extradition to another third countryrespect for the principle of non- refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention;
Amendment 1452 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 47 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Member States shall not apply the safe country of origin concept in case of applicants belonging to a minority or group of persons that remains at risk in light of the situation in the country of origin concerned, based on the sources of information listed in Paragraph 2 of this Article.
Amendment 1457 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2
Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. The Commission shall regularcontinuously review the situation in third countries that are on the EU common list of safe countries of origin or suspended from that list in accordance with Article 49. It shall also continuously review those countries' compliance with the conditions for the designation of a country as a safe country of origin set out in Article 47, with the assistance of the Union Agency for Asylum and based on the other sources of information referred to in Article 457(2). It shall keep the European Parliament informed in a timely manner.
Amendment 1459 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 48 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The Commission shall consult the Union Agency for Asylum when conducting its regular reviews of the situation in third countries which are included in the common EU list of safe countries of origin, including those that have been suspended. The Commission may request that the Union Agency for Asylum carry out a review of the situation in any such third country with a view to assessing whether the criteria set out in Article 47. When reviewing the EU common list of safe countries of origin, the Commission shall consult international organisations, in particular the UNHCR, and relevant civil society organisations or individuals with proven country-specific and human rights expertise.
Amendment 1460 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 48 – paragraph 4
Article 48 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1463 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – title
Article 49 – title
Suspension and removal of the designation of a third country as a safe third country at Union level orof a third country from the EU common list of safe countryies of origin
Amendment 1464 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph -1 (new)
Article 49 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts to suspend the presence of a third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin subject to the conditions as set out in this article.
Amendment 1465 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 1
Article 49 – paragraph 1
1. In case of sudden changes in the situation of a third country which is designated as a safe third country at Union level or which is on the EU common list ofon the EU common list of safe countries of origin could lead to that country's non- compliance with the conditions for the designation of a country as a safe countriesy of origin, the Commission shall immediately and rapidly conduct a substantiated assessment of the fulfilment by that country of the conditions set in Article 45 orout in Article 47 and, if the Commission considers that those conditions are no longer met, it shall adopt a delegated act suspending the designation of a third country as a safe third country at Union level or suspending the presence of a third country from the EU common list ofy are no longer met, it shall adopt as soon as possible a delegated act, in accordance with Article 290 TFEU, suspending the presence of that third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin for a period of six months. As soon as possible after it becomes aware of the change in situation and in any event before adopting the delegated act suspending inclusion of that third country from the EU common list, the Commission shall inform the Member States and recommend to them not to apply the safe countriesy of origin for a period of six monthsconcept to that third country at national level.
Amendment 1468 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 49 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 1469 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 49 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. UNHCR, non-governmental organisations and individual experts with proven and relevant country-specific and human rights expertise may request the Commission to suspend or remove a country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin. Such a request shall contain a detailed and up-to-date description of the human rights situation and the persistent human rights violations occurring in the country concerned. It shall also specify the non-compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 47 justifying the suspension or withdrawal of that country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin. Except where it considers the request to be inadmissible, unsubstantiated or repetitive, the Commission shall assess the information submitted in such requests.
Amendment 1470 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 3
Article 49 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1472 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 – paragraph 4
Article 49 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1475 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 49 a (new)
Article 49 a (new)
Article 49 a Removal of a third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin 1. Where the Commission has adopted a delegated act in accordance with Article 49, paragraph 1, suspending the designation of a third country as a safe country of origin, it shall within six months after the date of adoption of that delegated act submit a proposal, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, for amending this Regulation to remove that third country from the EU common list of safe countries of origin. 2 . Where such a legislative proposal is submitted by the Commission within six months, the Commission shall be empowered, on the basis of a substantial assessment, to extend the validity of that delegated act for a period of six months, with a possibility to renew this extension once. 3. Any amendment of the EU common list of safe countries of origin shall be adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. For that purpose: The Commission shall regularly examine the situation in third countries and the possibility of proposing to add them to the EU common list of safe countries of origin. If appropriate, the Commission shall draw up a proposal to enlarge the common list of safe countries of origin after a substantiated assessment of whether countries to be added to the list fulfil the criteria set out in Article 47. Assessments of whether a country is a safe country of origin conducted in accordance with this Article shall be based on a range of sources of information, including in particular regular reporting from the EEAS and information from Member States, the Union Agency for Asylum, the UNHCR, the Council of Europe, and other relevant international organisations, and national or international non-governmental organisations.
Amendment 1478 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1
Article 50 – paragraph 1
1. For a period of fivthree years from entry into force of this Regulation, Member States may retain or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of safe third countries or safe countries of origin other than those designated at Union level or which are on the EU common list in Annex 1 for the purposes of examining applications for international protection. During that period, they shall be responsible for making sure that the national lists of safe countries of origin and the EU common list of safe countries of origin are consistent with one another. This implies the following:
Amendment 1481 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
(a) Member States shall notify the Commission of any changes made to their national list.
Amendment 1482 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
(b) Member States may propose to add third countries to the EU common list of safe countries of origin. The Commission shall then examine those proposals within six months of their submission, based on the range of information sources at its disposal, in particular EEAS reports and information provided by Member States, the Union Agency for Asylum, the UNHCR, the Council of Europe and other relevant international organisations and national or international non- governmental organisations. If it decides that a third country may be added to the list, the Commission shall draw up a proposal to enlarge the EU common list of safe countries of origin.
Amendment 1483 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point c (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point c (new)
(c) Where a third country has been suspended from the EU common list of safe countries of origin pursuant to Article 49(1) of this Regulation, Member States shall not designate that country as a safe country of origin at the national level.
Amendment 1484 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point d (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point d (new)
(d) Where a third country has been removed from the EU common list of safe countries of origin pursuant to Article 49a, a Member State may notify the Commission where it considers that, following changes in the situation of that third country, it once again fulfils the criteria set out in Annex I to this Directive for being included in the EU common list of safe countries of origin. The Commission shall examine any such notification by a Member State and if appropriate, submit a proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council to amend the EU common list of safe countries of origin accordingly. If the Commission decides not to submit such a proposal, Member States shall not designate that country as a safe country of origin at national level.
Amendment 1487 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1490 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 1493 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 1497 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Article 50 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 1501 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 50 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. As from three years after the entry into force of this Regulation, only a third country that is on the EU common list of safe countries of origin as established, by this Regulation shall be considered to be a safe country of origin.
Amendment 1596 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 7
Annex I – paragraph 7