Activites

• 2013/06/29 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Regulation 2013/604
  • OJ L 180 29.06.2013, p. 0031
• 2013/06/26 Final act signed
• 2013/06/26 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2013/06/12 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T7-0255/2013 summary

    The European Parliament approved the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast). Parliament notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position.

• 2013/06/11 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2013/06/10 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
  • A7-0216/2013 summary

    The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the recommendation for second reading contained in the report by Cecilia WIKSTRÖM (ADLE, SE) on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast). The committee recommends the European Parliament to approve, unamended, the Council position at first reading.

• 2013/06/07 Council position published
  • 15605/3/2012 summary

    The Council adopted its position at first reading on the proposal for a recast of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person. The position at first reading is based on a compromise reached between Parliament and the Council. This compromise provides, in particular, for strengthened legal safeguards and rights for the applicants for international protection, while focusing in particular on the needs of vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors and dependent persons. At the same time, the compromise caters for reducing abuses of the system set up by the Dublin Regulation and for ensuring that disputes among Member States in its context are tackled more efficiently. The compromise also provides for addressing in a timely manner problems in the application of this Regulation owed to particular pressure on a Member State’s asylum system, or because of its malfunctioning, through the setting up of a mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management. The key aspects of the compromise may be summarised as follows: A. A mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management (Art. 33): this mechanism is a new element added during the negotiations, replacing the so-called “suspension mechanism” contained in the original recast proposal of the Dublin Regulation. It is designed to address effectively and in a timely manner situations where the application of the Dublin Regulation may be jeopardised (with direct effects on the applicants who are in the Member State concerned), due to a particular pressure on a Member State's asylum system, or problems arising in the functioning of the asylum system of a Member State. It aims at ensuring effective cooperation and developing mutual trust and solidarity among Member States by way of preventing or managing a crisis in the asylum system of one or more Member States. B. Remedies (Arts. 27 & 3(2)): the compromise emphasises the right of the person concerned to an effective remedy against the transfer decision before a court or a tribunal. The Member State shall provide for a reasonable period of time within which the aforementioned remedy may be exercised in order to be effective. As regards the issue of the suspension of the implementation of the transfer decision until a decision on a remedy against it is taken, Member States shall at least ensure in their national legislation that an effective remedy can be exercised by suspending the transfer until a decision on the first suspension request is taken. The recast also delineates the framework within which the person concerned will have access to legal assistance, free of charge where appropriate, in order to exercise effectively his/her right to an effective remedy. As a corollary to Art. 27 on remedies, a provision has been added to make provision for the determination of the Member State responsible for examining the application, where the transfer of the person concerned is impossible due to a real risk of violation of fundamental rights. In this case, the Member State which carries out the determination procedure shall become the Member State responsible. C. Detention (Art. 28): the compromise text provides for a comprehensive framework whereby the conditions under which a person concerned may be detained on the basis of “Dublin grounds”. These conditions are when there is a significant risk of the absconding of the person concerned, and an individual assessment of each case is made before a decision is taken on whether to impose detention. The compromise also deals with the time limits of the detention period, stating that it shall be for as short a period as possible. As regards the detention per se, the most important consequence is the obligation of the Member State which detains him/her (and which did not meet its deadlines) to release the detainee, while it is clarified that there is no shifting of the responsibility under the Dublin procedure. D. Unaccompanied minors & the definition of relatives (Arts. 2(h) & 8): the compromise text provides for the legal framework under which an unaccompanied minor (provision is also made for the married minors whose spouse are not legally present on the territory of a Member State) shall be united with family members, siblings, or relatives, along with the relevant conditions of each provision, with a view to rendering responsible for the examination of the application the Member State where the reunification will take place. The ultimate check on all cases provided for under this Article is that any reunification shall be in the best interest of the minor. The best-interest-of -the-minor requirement also applies in the absence of any of the above family relations, in which case the Member State responsible is the one where the unaccompanied minor lodged his/her application. In the context of this occasion, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have submitted a statement, inviting the latter to consider a possible revision of Art. 8(4). The compromise also meets the concerns of the Council for fighting abuse in the context of the asylum procedures. In this context, the compromise text provides for the scope of the term "relative" as the applicant's adult aunt or uncle or grandparent, who is present in the territory of a Member State. E. Dependent persons (Art. 16): the compromise on this provision deals with cases where the applicant, due to certain grounds of vulnerability, is dependent on the assistance of his/her child, sibling or parent legally resident in one of the Member States, or with cases where these persons depend on the applicant’s assistance on the same grounds. The compromise provides for the legal framework on the basis of which Member States shall normally keep or bring together the applicant with the above persons, provided that certain conditions are met. The following issues dealt with in the compromise text are also worth noting: -          definition of unaccompanied minor (Art. 2(j)): the text provides that the unaccompanied minor may be married or unmarried; -          right to information (Arts 4 & 5): the text provides for the right of the applicant to receive, in writing (or orally, where appropriate) and in a language that the applicant understands detailed information regarding the contents of the Dublin Regulation upon the lodging of his/ her application. A common leaflet (and a special one on unaccompanied minors) containing at least the information to which the applicant is entitled, shall be drawn up; -          personal interview (Art. 5): the compromise provides for an obligation to hold a personal interview with the applicant, in a timely and appropriate manner, with a view to facilitating the process of determining the Member State responsible. However, a Member State which omits the interview shall give the applicant the opportunity to present all further, relevant information, before a decision is taken on the transfer of the applicant; -          guarantees for minors (Art. 6): the text regarding the guarantees for minors should be considered in the context of the best-interest-of-the-child principle. It requires Member States' to ensure proper representation of the minor, as well as to take, as soon as possible, appropriate action to identify family members, siblings or relatives of an unaccompanied minor on the territory of another Member State; -          discretionary clauses (Art. 17): the text provides for a derogation from the criteria for establishing the Member State responsible. The scope of the provision has been extended more explicitly by the deletion of the reference to "humanitarian and compassionate grounds", as a basis for the derogation has been deleted, as well as the provision for a prior consent from the applicant in order to use this Article; -          obligations of the Member State responsible (Chapters V & VI in general): within the context of these Chapters, which regulate the obligations of the Member State responsible, the text provides for legally and procedurally enhanced requirements aiming at safeguarding all the relevant rights of the applicant, as well as making the practical cooperation among the Member States concerned more efficient. Implementing and delegating acts: lastly, the text provides for implementing powers (using the examination procedure) for the purpose of certain provisionswhere this kind of empowerment to the Commission was deemed sufficient. The option of delegated acts is provided for in the context of Art. 8 (reunification of the unaccompanied minor with family members, siblings or relatives) in particular regarding the assessment of whether the relevant criteria were met and Art. 16 (reunification of dependent applicants with children, parents or siblings, or vice versa) also in particular regarding the assessment of whether the relevant criteria were met.

• #3244
• 2013/06/06 Council Meeting
• #3207
• 2012/12/06 Council Meeting
• #3195
• 2012/10/25 Council Meeting
  • 3195 summary

    The Council was informed in a public session about the state-of-play of negotiations on the various outstanding legislative proposals concerning the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), on the basis of a paper prepared by the Cypriot Presidency. One of these proposals relates to the recast of the Dublin Regulation. Negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament on the substance of the Dublin regulation have been finalised. The only outstanding issue is related to the comitology procedure, i.e. whether to use delegated or implementing acts. It should be noted that, at its meeting of 19 September, Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Internal Affairs (LIBE) came out in favour of this overall compromise. On 10 October 2012, the Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER) agreed on a mandate to start negotiations with representatives of the European Parliament on the remaining provisions related to delegated acts and implementing acts. On the basis of this mandate, the Presidency will engage in trilogues with the European Parliament with a view to reaching an agreement on the entire recast of the Dublin Regulation by the end of the year. The first technical meeting on this issue with the European Parliament was held on 12 October 2012.

• #3162
• 2012/04/26 Council Meeting
  • 3162 summary

    The Council took note, on the basis of a presidency paper (doc. 8595/12), of the state-of-play of negotiations on the various outstanding legislative proposals concerning the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). In keeping with the commitment to strengthen the CEAS by the end of 2012, the Council instructed its preparatory bodies to continue work on the various proposals. The situation on the four outstanding files can be described as follows: ·        Reception Conditions Directive: negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament are expected to start soon. A revised proposal was tabled by the Commission on 1 June 2011. ·        Asylum Procedures Directive: progress has been made, in particular regarding access to the procedure, applicants with special procedural needs and the applicability of accelerated procedures. Discussions in the Council preparatory bodies are continuing on other key elements such as guarantees for unaccompanied minors, subsequent applications and the right to an effective remedy. A revised proposal for the directive was tabled by the Commission on 1 June 2011. ·        Eurodac Regulation: discussions are on hold pending a revised Commission proposal. Member States have requested additional provisions that would allow law enforcement authorities to access this central EU-wide fingerprint database, subject to strict conditions on data protection, for the purposes of fighting terrorism and organised crime. ·        Dublin Regulation (procedures for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection): negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament are expected to start soon. The Council has introduced a mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management. This mechanism is aimed at evaluating the practical functioning of national asylum systems, assisting Member States in need and preventing asylum crises. It will concentrate on enabling the adoption of measures to prevent asylum crises from developing rather than addressing the consequences of such crises once they had occurred. Furthermore, in March 2012 the Council adopted conclusions on a common framework for genuine and practical solidarity with Member States facing particular pressures on their asylum systems, including through mixed migration flows. These conclusions are intended to constitute a toolbox for EU-wide solidarity with those Member States most affected by such pressures and/or encountering problems in their asylum systems. They aim to complement the implementation of the mechanism envisaged for early warning, preparedness and crisis management in the amended Dublin Regulation. It should be noted that four other agreements and decisions related to the CEAS have already been adopted. They concern: ·        the Qualification Directive providing for better, clearer and more harmonised standards for identifying persons in need of international protection which was adopted in November 2011 and entered into force in January 2012; ·        the Long Term Residence Directive adopted in April 2011; ·        the creation of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) which started operations in spring 2011; ·        the decision taken in March 2012 establishing common EU resettlement priorities for 2013 as well as new rules on EU funding for resettlement activities carried out by Member States. As regards the overall context, it should be remembered that the European Council confirmed in its conclusions in June 2011 that negotiations on the various elements of the CEAS should be concluded by 2012.

• #3151
• 2012/03/08 Council Meeting
  • 3151 summary

    The Council looked, on the basis of a presidency paper, at the state-of-play of negotiations on the various legislative proposals concerning the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Ministers instructed the Council preparatory bodies to continue their work to reach an agreement at Council level and with the European Parliament as soon as possible. The situation on the various files can be described as follows: The qualification directive providing for better, clearer and more harmonised standards for identifying persons in need of international protection was adopted in November 2011 and entered into force in January 2012. The asylum procedures and reception conditions directives: revised proposals were tabled by the Commission on 1 June 2011. Significant progress has been made on the two instruments, in particular on the reception conditions directives where negotiations with the European Parliament are expected to start soon. The main outstanding issues here concern the grounds for detention and access to labour market for asylum applicants. The Dublin II regulation (current proposal being examined) establishes the procedures for determining the member state responsible for examining an application for international protection. Further progress has been made on almost all aspects, in particular concerning a proposal to introduce a mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management. The Eurodac regulation: discussions on amendments to the rules regulating this fingerprint database are on hold pending a revised Commission proposal. Member states have requested additional provisions which would allow their law enforcement authorities to access the Eurodac central database under strict conditions on data protection for the purposes of fighting terrorism and organised crime. Two other agreements related to the CEAS have been achieved so far. They concern the long term residence directive and the creation of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) which started operations in spring 2011. In addition, the Council took a decision without discussion which establishes common EU resettlement priorities for 2013 as well as new rules on EU funding for resettlement activities carried out by member states.

• #3111
• 2011/09/22 Council Meeting
  • 3111 summary

    The Council discussed the state of play of negotiations on the asylum package on the basis of two presidency papers taking into account the commitment to set up the CEAS by 2012.Particular attention was given to possible ways to move forward in negotiations on the Dublin regulation based on the concept of an early warning and preparedness process, in the form of an 'asylum evaluation mechanism'. Such an evaluation mechanism could be used as a tool for the prevention of asylum crises and could be set up in parallel to the 'emergency mechanism' so far included in the Commission proposal and rejected by a majority of Member States. The evaluation mechanism would pursue two objectives: to contribute to the development of mutual trust among Member States with respect to asylum policy;to function as a mechanism for early warning and preparedness for crises, thus facilitating decisions on the application of emergency measures in such situations.The 'emergency mechanism', strongly advocated by the Commission, would allow for the temporary suspension of transfers of asylum seekers to a particular Member State which found itself in a situation of strong and disproportionate pressure on its asylum system. The discussion showed that the new idea for an evaluation mechanism was generally welcomed. A majority of Member States continued to refuse the idea of an emergency mechanism, however, even if accompanied by an asylum evaluation mechanism.

• #3043
• 2010/11/08 Council Meeting
  • 3043 summary

    Ministers continued work on the establishment of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) on the basis of a discussion paper which presents the state of play in relation to the discussions regarding a package of six legislative proposals which EU Member States have committed to adopt by 2012.It relates to the following proposals:the proposal for the extension of the Long-Term Residents Directive to beneficiaries of international protection;the recast of the ‘Qualification’ Directive;the recast of the EURODAC Regulation;this proposal for the recast of the ‘Dublin’ Regulation;the establishment of a European Asylum Support Office (EASO);the amendment of Decision No 573/2007/ECestablishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 by removing funding for certain Community actions and altering the limit for funding such actions (already adopted).As regards this proposal for the recast of the Dublin Regulation, the discussion paper recalls that on the basis of valuable efforts by previous Presidencies, technical discussions in Council preparatory bodies have reached their final stage now. During several meetings in the Asylum Working Party and in SCIFA (Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum), the Presidency found broad support for the proposed approach on a number of issues, such as the definition of ‘family members’, the concept of relatives, the issue of detention in relation with the Dublin procedure and the suspensive character of appeals against transfer decisions. Also, on a number of occasions, ministers voiced serious concerns regarding proposed suspension mechanisms for Dublin transfers in case of particular pressure on the asylum system of a Member State.Some Member States emphasised the need for the principle of solidarity to be adequately reflected in the development of the next phase of the CEAS, including in the context of discussions on the revision of the Dublin II mechanism (the current text of the Dublin II regulation states that the member states through which an asylum seeker first entered the territory of the EU are responsible for dealing with that person's request for asylum).In the course of the coming weeks, the Council position will be further clarified, taking account of the outcomes of abovementioned discussions, with a view to starting first informal contacts with the European Parliament before the end of the year.

• #3034
• 2010/10/07 Council Meeting
  • 3034 summary

    Ministers discussed the state-of-play regarding the establishment of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The CEAS includes a package of six legislative proposals which EU member states have undertaken to adopt by 2012.The basis for the discussion was a presidency report that gave an overview of the debate after an informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 15 and 16 July and a ministerial conference on 13 and 14 September 2010 in Brussels.Member states highlighted a number of issues of particular concern to them including the need to combine a high level of protection with efficient and effective asylum systems, solidarity and changes to the Dublin II system. The current text of the Dublin II regulation states that the member states through which an asylum seeker first entered the territory of the EU are responsible for dealing with that person's request for asylum.Malta, Greece and Cyprus, for example, repeated their call for solidarity and support from the European Commission and other member states to help them cope with the large number of asylum requests with which they are confronted. The Dublin II regulation should, in their opinion, be reformed.Other member states, including Germany and Austria, maintained that the proper functioning of the Dublin II regulation was at the heart of any possible future Common European Asylum System. These countries and others, like the UK, also stressed the importance for more cooperation with third countries on issues such as readmission agreements and border controls. They also stressed that they were ready to provide practical support and cooperation in order to help those member states struggling with a greater burden to implement existing legislation. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO), which is expected to be operational early in 2011, is expected to play an important role in this respect.In the context of this debate, the Commission also informed the Council of its recent missions to Greece where it discussed with Greek political leaders the reform of their asylum system. Greece has recently adopted a national action plan on asylum reform and migration management in response to significant increases in the number of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Member states confirmed their readiness to assist in the implementation of the plan.

• #2946
• 2009/06/04 Council Meeting
  • 2946 summary

    In public deliberation, the Council held a policy debate on the state of negotiations regarding five legislative acts concerning asylum. The Council welcomed the progress already made and instructed its preparatory bodies to continue the examining the proposals taking account of the European Parliament’s opinion, delivered on 7 May, as well as the views expressed by delegations in the discussion.The five proposals involve amendments to the so called "Dublin" regulation, the EURODAC regulation, and the reception conditions directive as well as a proposal for the establishment of a European asylum support office and a related amendment of the European refugee fund.These measures stem from the commitments undertaken in the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum adopted by the European Council in October 2008, with the purpose to complete the Common European Asylum System provided for in the Hague Programme.Over the last few months, the Council preparatory bodies have carried out intensive discussions on the five proposals. A first reading of the text has been completed in all cases.On 7 May, the European Parliament adopted legislative resolutions setting out amendments to the Commission proposals under the Council-Parliament codecision procedure. Examination of these amendments is now underway.

• 2009/05/07 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T6-0377/2009 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by, by 398 votes in favour to 56 against with 65 abstentions, a legislative resolution amending, under the first reading of codecision procedure, the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast). The main amendments are as follows:Definitions: Members made some amendments to the definition of “unaccompanied minor.”Guarantees for minors: Parliament inserted a new provision stating that within the framework of the application of this Regulation and under the conditions laid down in Article 17 of Directive 2005/85/EC, Member States may use medical examinations to determine the age of unaccompanied minors. In cases where medical examinations are used, Member States shall ensure that they are conducted in a reasonable and thorough manner, as required by scientific and ethical standards.Hierarchy of criteria: Parliament deleted the derogation in the proposal, stating that this would make the determination of responsibility too complicated and encourage abuse.Submitting a take back request: once there is a hit in the EURODAC system there is no need for a long delay in filling the request to take back the person concerned. Members reduced the deadline from 2 months to 1 month. Remedies: Member States shall provide for a reasonable period of time within which the person concerned may exercise his/her right to an effective judicial remedy. That period of time shall be not less than 10 working days as from the date of notification of a transfer decision.Mode of carrying out transfers: a new clause states that the Member State carrying out the transfer shall promote voluntary transfers by providing adequate information to the applicant. If transfers to the Member State responsible are carried out by supervised departure or under escort, Member States shall ensure that they are carried out in a humane manner and with full respect for fundamental rights and human dignity.Temporary suspension of transfers: Parliament stipulated that the decision to suspend transfers shall include indicia of measures, benchmarks and timetables to be established in order to assess progress toward resolution of the circumstances requiring a suspension. A Member State shall take effective and timely steps to remedy the situation that led to the temporary suspension of transfers. The committee also added a clause stating that on a proposal by the Commission, and acting in accordance with the codecision procedure, instruments shall be enacted, binding on all Member States, in order to provide effective support to those Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures on their national systems due, in particular, to their geographical or demographic situation. Those instruments shall enter into force no later than 31 December 2011 and in any event make provision for the following: a) the secondment of officials from other Member States, under the aegis of the European Asylum Support Office, who assist those Member States which are faced with specific pressures and where the applicants cannot benefit from adequate standards of protection; (b) a scheme to reallocate beneficiaries of international protection from Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures to others, in consultation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, while ensuring that the reallocation follows non-discretionary, transparent and unequivocal rules. The article on temporary suspension of transfers shall cease to apply as soon as the instruments referred to above have entered into force, and in any event on 31 December 2011 at the latest.A further new clause in the text states that as part of the monitoring and evaluation, the Commission shall review the application of the article on temporary suspensions and report to the European Parliament and the Council no later than 30 June 2011. In its report, the Commission shall assess whether there is a justified need to extend the application of this Article beyond 31 December 2011. If the Commission considers it appropriate, it shall submit a proposal for such an extension to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with the codecision procedure.

• 2009/05/06 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2009/04/29 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0284/2009
• 2009/04/27 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2009/02/03 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2008/12/03 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2008)0820 summary

    PURPOSE: to recast Regulation 343/2003/EC (“the Dublin Regulation”) on the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national.PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. BACKGROUND : the Commission's Evaluation Report of the Dublin system (please see the supplementary document under procedure CNS/2001/0182 dated 06/06/2007) has identified a number of deficiencies related mainly to the efficiency of the system put in place by the current legislative provisions and the level of protection afforded to applicants for international protection, which are subject to the Dublin procedure. The Commission therefore wishes to amend the Dublin Regulation in order, on the one hand, to enhance the system's efficiency and, on the other, to ensure that the needs of applicants for international protection are comprehensively addressed under the responsibility determination procedure. This proposal is part of a first package of proposals which aim to ensure a higher degree of harmonisation and better standards of protection for the Common European Asylum System (“CEAS”)CONTENT: the main aim of the proposal is to increase the system's efficiency and to ensure higher standards of protection for persons falling under the "Dublin procedure". At the same time, the proposal aims to contribute to better addressing situations of particular pressure on Member States' reception facilities and asylum systems. The main points are as follows: Scope of the Regulation: the proposal extends the scope of the application of the Regulation in order to include applicants for (and beneficiaries of) subsidiary protection.Efficiency of the system: several modifications are proposed, in particular:deadlines for submitting take back requests are established and the deadline for replying to requests for information is reduced. A deadline for replying to requests on humanitarian grounds is introduced and it is clarified that requests on humanitarian grounds can be made at any time;the cessation of responsibility clauses have been clarified as regards the circumstances under which the cessation clauses should apply, the Member State which bears the burden of proof and the consequences of the cessation of responsibility. These clarifications aim to diminish divergences of interpretation by Member States;the circumstances and procedures for applying the discretionary clauses (humanitarian and sovereignty) have been clarified;rules on transfers have been added, i.e. on erroneous transfers and costs for transfers. A new provision on the sharing of relevant information before transfers are carried out is added to facilitate cooperation between Member States on practical arrangements for transfers;the existing dispute settlement mechanism, provided currently by the Dublin Implementing Regulation only for divergences between Member States in the application of the humanitarian clause, has been extended in order to cover matters of dispute on the application of the entire Regulation;a provision on the organisation of a compulsory interview is inserted. Legal safeguards: the proposal introduces a number of modifications:the content, form and the timing for providing information to applicants for international protection are specified in greater detail in the Regulation. Moreover, the proposal envisages the adoption of a common information leaflet to be used across the Member States;the right to appeal against a transfer decision, together with the obligation for the competent authorities to decide whether or not its enforcement should be suspended and to allow the person concerned to remain on the territory pending such a decision, are laid down. Moreover, the right to legal assistance, and to linguistic assistance, is clarified and the notification process is further clarified in order to ensure a more effective right to seek a remedy;a new provision recalling the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he/she is seeking international protection is included. Moreover, in order to ensure that detention of asylum-seekers under the Dublin procedure is not arbitrary, limited specific grounds for such detention are proposed. Specific rules are laid down for the special situation of minors and that of unaccompanied minors.  Family unity: it is proposed to:extend the right to family reunification to include family members who are beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and who reside in another Member State ;make compulsory the reunification of dependent relatives (i.e. either a relative which is dependant on an applicant or an applicant which is dependant on a relative) and of unaccompanied minors with relatives who can take care of them;extend the definition of "family members" as far as minors are concerned, in order to ensure better protection of the "best interests of the child";exclude the possibility of sending back an applicant for whom one of the family unity criteria can be applied at the time of the most recent application, on condition that the Member State where the first application was lodged has not already taken a first decision regarding the substance.Unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups: a new provision dealing with guarantees for minors is added, and the protection afforded to unaccompanied minors is enlarged to allow for reunification not only with the nuclear family but also with other relatives present in another Member State who can take care of them. In the absence of a family member or another relative, the Member State responsible is the one where the applicant lodged his/her most recent application, provided this is in his/her best interests.Particular pressure or inadequate level of protection: where there is particular pressure on certain Member States with limited reception and absorption capacities, Dublin transfers add to the burden on those Member States. A new procedure is inserted allowing for the suspension of Dublin transfers towards the responsible Member State. Such a procedure can also be used in cases where there are concerns that Dublin transfers could result in applicants not benefiting from adequate standards of protection in the responsible Member State, in particular in terms of reception conditions and access to the asylum procedure.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, MALMSTRÖM Cecilia

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2008)0820
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0284/2009
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0377/2009
• Debate in Council: 2946
• Debate in Council: 3034
• Debate in Council: 3043
• Debate in Council: 3111
• Debate in Council: 3151
• Debate in Council: 3162
• Debate in Council: 3195
• Council position published: 15605/3/2012
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A7-0216/2013
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T7-0255/2013
• : Regulation 2013/604
• : OJ L 180 29.06.2013, p. 0031

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)