2015/0125(NLE) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a decision
Recital 26 c (new)

The principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be fully respected during the whole relocation procedure. Discrimination on grounds of sex, age, ethnicity, disabilities and religion is a clear violation of the Treaty.

Amendment 101 #

Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a decision
Recital 26 a (new)

(26a) Applicants can ask to choose the Member State of their relocation and this preference has to be taken into account to the extent possible.

Amendment 102 #

Malin BJÖRK, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 27

(27) The appointment by Member States of liaison officers in Italy and Greece should facilitate the effective implementation of the relocation procedure, including the appropriate identification of the applicants to be relocated, taking into account in particular their vulnerability and qualifications and, as far as possible, their preferences.

Amendment 103 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 27

(27) The appointment by Member States of liaison officers in Italy and Greece should facilitate the effective implementation of the relocation procedure, including the appropriate identification of the applicants to be relocated, in full respect of the persons’ right to human dignity without recourse to any coercion or detention measures; taking into account in particular their vulnerability, preferences, and qualifications.

Amendment 104 #

Carlos COELHO, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Barbara MATERA

Proposal for a decision
Recital 27

Amendment 105 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 28

(28) The legal and procedural safeguards set out in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 remain applicable in respect of applicants covered by this Decision. In addition, applicants should be informed of the relocation procedure set out in this Decision and notified with the relocation decision~~. Considering that an applicant does not have the right under EU law to choose the Member State responsible for his/her applica~~, as recalled by Article 33 of the International Migration Convention~~, t~~. The applicant, should have the right to an effective remedy against the relocation decision in line with Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, only in view of ensuring respect of his/her fundamental rights.

Amendment 106 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 29 a (new)

(29a) Whereas Court rulings both at European and national level have highlighted the flaws in the Regulation (EU) No 603/2013.

Amendment 107 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 30

(30) Measures should be taken in order to avoid secondary movements of relocated persons from the Member State of relocation to other Member States. ~~In particular~~Taking the preferences of applicants, including family ties beyond the provisions regarding family in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, social and cultural ties, as much as possible into account is a straightforward measure for applicants to develop a sense of belonging to the Member State of relocation. Applicants should be provided with all necessary information in a language they understand or are reasonably supposed to understand about their destination and, in case their preference could not be fully taken into account, of the reasons for this. Although desirable, consent of applicants is not required, provided that fundamental rights of the applicant are guaranteed. In addition, applicants should be informed of the consequences of onward movement within the Member States as provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and of the fact that, if the Member State of relocation grants them international protection, in principle, they are only entitled to the rights attached to international protection in that Member State.

Amendment 108 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Ska KELLER, Angelika MLINAR, Birgit SIPPEL

Proposal for a decision
Recital 30

(30) Measures should be taken in order to avoid secondary movements of relocated persons from the Member State of relocation to other Member States. In particular, applicants should be informed of the consequences of onward movement within the Member States and of the fact that, if the Member State of relocation grants them international protection, ~~in principle,~~ they are only entitled to the rights attached to international protection in that Member State.

Amendment 109 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 30 a (new)

(30a) Consent of applicants or beneficiaries of international protection to relocation is an established principle in EU law, enshrined in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 and by analogy in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and in Article 17(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, in case of use of the discretionary clauses in the Dublin procedure. According to Article 10 of this Decision, Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 is fully applicable to this Decision. Consent is of particular importance in case the preferences of an applicant cannot be taken into account. If applicants would be transferred to another Member State against their will, secondary movement is a likely consequence. Therefore, in this case, the person should not be relocated but instead another person should get the opportunity to be transferred to the respective Member State. Since the number of applicants eligible for relocation is significantly higher than the places available for relocation, a shortage of applicants for relocation will not occur. In addition, refusal to be relocated is expected to be rare due to the high incentives for applicants to participate in relocation, as, even in case of relocation to a Member State not belonging to his or her preferences, it would allow for quick integration opportunities in another Member State with reception capacity and high standard reception conditions readily available. Or. en Justification

Amendment 110 #

Carlos COELHO, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Barbara MATERA

Proposal for a decision
Recital 31

(31) ~~Since the objectives of this Decision cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, t~~The Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

Amendment 111 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 1

This Decision establishes binding provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece in view of enabling them to cope with an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries in those Member States.

Amendment 112 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 1

This Decision establishes provisional emergency measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece in view of enabling them to cope with an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries in those Member States.

Amendment 113 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 1

This Decision establishes provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece in view of enabling them to cope with an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries or stateless persons in those Member States.

Amendment 114 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – point b

(b) ‘applicant’ means a third-country national or a stateless person who has made an application for international protection in respect of which a final decision has not yet been taken; of Article 2 (i) of Directive 2011/95/EU.

Amendment 115 #

Pál CSÁKY, Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – point d

(d) ~~‘family members’ means family members as defined~~ 'close relatives' means the spouse, children, parents, persons exercising p~~oint (g) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council;~~arental authority, grandparents and grandchildren; (Horizontal amendment. If adopted, applies throughout the text.)

Amendment 116 #

Lorenzo FONTANA

Proposal for a decision
Article 2 – point e

(e) ‘relocation’ means the transfer of an applicant from the ~~territory of the Member State which the criteria laid down in Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 indicate as responsible for examining his application for international protection~~Member State territory of arrival to the territory of the Member State of relocation;

Amendment 117 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. Relocation shall only take place on voluntary basis in respect of applicants whose applications for international protection shall in principle be examined by Italy and Greece pursuant to the criteria for determining the Member State responsible set out in Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013.

Amendment 118 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. Relocation pursuant to this Decision shall onprimarily be applied in respect of applicants belonging to nationalities for which, according to the latest available EU-wide average Eurostat data, the proportion of decisions granting international protection among decisions taken at first instance on applications for international protection as referred to in Chapter III of Directive 2013/13/EU is 75% or higher. In the case of stateless persons, the country of former habitual residence shall be taken into account.

Amendment 119 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The purpose of this Directive shall be dependent upon Italy and Greece fulfilling its obligations to implement effective processing of those seeking international protection, carrying out swift and effective returns operations, and ensuring detention condition are in line with EU fundamental rights and EU law.

Amendment 120 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Given the changing nature of migratory flows, the targeted group of beneficiaries for relocation should be assessed on a quarterly basis.

Amendment 121 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. It is necessary to include a review clause at the end of the first year of implementation.

Amendment 122 #

Lorenzo FONTANA

1. 24 000 applicants shall be relocated from Italy to the territory of the other Member States as set out in Annex I. 2. 16 000 applicants shall be relocated from Greece to the territory of the other Member States as set out in Annex II.Article 4 deleted Distribution key

Amendment 123 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – introductory part (new)

To relieve the significant asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, but also to act as an important test case with a view to the upcoming legislative proposal on a permanent emergency relocation scheme based on Article 78(2) TFEU, a total of 40.000 applicants shall be relocated from Italy and Greece.

Amendment 124 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 4

1. 24 000 applicants shall be relocated from Italy to the territory of the other Member States ~~as set out in Annex I~~on a voluntary basis reflecting the specific situations of Member States. 2. 16 000 applicants shall be relocated from Greece to the territory of the other Member States ~~as set out in Annex II~~on a voluntary basis reflecting the specific situations of Member States.

Amendment 125 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. ~~24 0~~37 500 applicants shall be relocated from Italy to the territory of the other Member States as set out in Annex I.

Amendment 126 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. 245 000 applicants shall be relocated from Italy to the territory of the other Member States as set out in Annex I.

Amendment 127 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. ~~24 000~~As many applicants shall be relocated from Italy to the territory of the other Member States as ~~set out in Annex I~~the Member States voluntarily accept.

Amendment 128 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. ~~16 0~~37 500 applicants shall be relocated from Greece to the territory of the other Member States as set out in Annex II.

Amendment 129 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. 1625 000 applicants shall be relocated from Greece to the territory of the other Member States as set out in Annex II.

Amendment 130 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Louis MICHEL, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Proposal for a decision
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. ~~16 000~~As many applicants shall be relocated from Greece to the territory of the other Member States as ~~set out in Annex II~~the Member States voluntarily accept.

Amendment 131 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. ~~Italy and Greece shall, a~~At regular intervals during the period of application of this Decision, EASO with the assistance of ~~EASO~~Italy and Greece and, where applicable, of Member States' liaison officers referred to in paragraph 8, shall identify the individual applicants to be relocated to the other Member States ~~and~~, priority being given to that purpose to vulnerable applicants within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive 2013/33/EU. Italy and Greece shall then communicate to the contact points of those Member States ~~and to EASO the number~~the number and the list of applicants that can be relocated~~. Priority shall be given for that purpose to vulnerable applicants within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive 2013/33/EU~~, with, where applicable, the preferences expressed by applicants to certain Member States.

Amendment 132 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Italy and Greece shall, at regular intervals during the period of application of this Decision, with the assistance of EASO and, where applicable, of Member States' liaison officers referred to in paragraph 8, identify the individual applicants to be relocated to the other Member States and communicate to the contact points of those Member States and to EASO the number of applicants that can be relocated. Priority shall be given for that purpose to vulnerable applicants within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive 2013/33/EU, and special attention should be given to unaccompanied children.

Amendment 133 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Italy and Greece shall, at regular intervals during the period of application of this Decision, with the assistance of EASO and other relevant agencies, and, where applicable, of Member States' liaison officers referred to in paragraph 8, identify the individual applicants to be relocated to the other Member States and communicate to the contact points of those Member States and to EASO the number of applicants that can be relocated. Priority shall be given for that purpose to vulnerable applicants within the meaning of Articles 21 and 22 of Directive 2013/33/EU.

Amendment 134 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. As soon as possible after receiving the information referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall inform about the available capacity for reception of migrants and indicate the number of applicants who can be relocated immediately to their territory and any other relevant information, within the numbers set out in Annex I and Annex II respectively.

Amendment 135 #

Pál CSÁKY, Artis PABRIKS

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. As soon as possible after receiving the information referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall indicate the number of applicants who can be relocated immediately to their territory and any other relevant information, within the numbers set out in Annex I and Annex II respectively. Taking into account the rapidly changing situation in EU's neighbourhood, the Member States should have the right to review every three months the number of applicants who can be relocated immediately in its territory.

Amendment 136 #

Laura FERRARA

3. As soon as possible after receiving the information referred to in paragraph 2, Member States shall indicate the number of applicants who can be relocated immediately to their territory and any other relevant information, within the numbers set out in Annex I and Annex II respectively. In the absence of indication on the number of applicants who can be relocated to the territory of the Member States, it will activate an automatic mechanism of relocation on the basis of parameters set out in Annex I and Annex II.

Amendment 137 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 4

4. On the basis of the information received pursuant to paragraphs 3, 3a and 3b of this Article, Italy and Greece shall, as soon as possible, take a decision to relocate each of the identified applicants to a specific Member State of relocation ~~and shall notify~~by taking preferences of applicants and Member States into account to the fullest extent possible and shall notify the Member States and the applicant in accordance with Article 6(4).

Amendment 138 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 5

5. Applicants whose fingerprints are required to be taken pursuant to the obligations set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 may only be proposed for relocatedion if their fingerprints have been taken and transmitted to the Central System of Eurodac, pursuant to that Regulation.

Amendment 139 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 5

5. Applicants whose fingerprints are required to be taken and transmitted pursuant to the obligations set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 may only be relocated if their fingerprints have been taken.

Amendment 140 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 5

5. Applicants whose fingerprints are required to be taken pursuant to the obligations set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 603/2013 may only be relocated if their fingerprints have been taken. in full respect of the persons’ right to human dignity without recourse to any coercion or detention measure;

Amendment 141 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 5 – paragraph 9

9. The relocation procedure provided for in this Article shall not take longer than one month from the time of identification of the specific applicants to be relocated in line with paragraph 2 of this Article, and, unless this is contrary to the interest of the person concerned, should be completed no later than two months from the day of his/her arrival in Italy or Greece.

Amendment 142 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that family members as already defined under existing EU law, who fall within the scope of this Decision are relocated to the territory of the same Member State.

Amendment 143 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 4

4. When the decision to relocate an applicant has been taken and before the actual relocation, Italy and Greece shall notify the person concerned of the decision to relocate him in writing. That decision shall specify the Member State of relocation. The Member States are not obliged to seek the consent of the applicant with regard to their place of relocation.

Amendment 144 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 6 – paragraph 5

5. An applicant or beneficiary of international protection who enters the territory of another Member State than the Member State of relocation without fulfilling the conditions for stay in that other Member State shall be required to go back immediately and taken back by the Member State of relocation, pursuant to the rules laid down in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1 respectively. Applicants who have been granted international protection in a Member State as a consequence of a failed Dublin transfer should also be counted as part of the overall relocation number applicable to that individual Member State. 1 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p.98).

Amendment 145 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – introductory part

Member States shall increase their support in the area of international protection toif requested by Italy and Greece via the relevant activities coordinated by EASO and other relevant Agencies, in particular by providing when necessary national experts for the following support activities:

Amendment 146 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – introductory part

Member States shall increase their support in the area of international protection to Italy and Greece via the relevant activities coordinated by EASO and other relevant Agencies, in particular by providing when necessary national experts upon previous agreement with the hosting Member States for the following support activities:

Amendment 147 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – introductory part

Member States shall increase their support in the area of international protection to Italy and Greece via the relevant activities coordinated by EASO and other relevant Agencies, in particular by providing when necessary national experts for the following support activities in order to ensure the lawful and good functioning of their national asylum system:

Amendment 148 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – point a

(a) the screening of the third-country nationals arriving in Italy and Greece, including their clear identification, fingerprinting and registration of the applications for international protection, in full respect of the persons’ right to human dignity without recourse to any coercion or detention measures;

Amendment 149 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – point b

(b) the initial processing of the applications; the screening of the third- country nationals arriving in Italy and Greece, including their clear identification, fingerprinting and registration of the applications for international protection;

Amendment 150 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – point ca (new)

(ca) facilitating the relocation by gathering and collecting information on specific qualifications, family ties, social relations, previous stay, study or work or language knowledge of the applicant;

Amendment 151 #

Heinz K. BECKER, Pál CSÁKY, Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Proposal for a decision
Article 7 – point d

(d) the implementation of the transfer of the applicants to the Member State of relocation. The transfer costs to the Member State of relocation should not be an additional burden to Greece and Italy.

Amendment 152 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 1

1. Italy and Greece shall each, within one month of entry into force of this Decision, present a roadmap to the Commission which shall include adequate measures in the area of asylum, first reception and return, enhancing the capacity, quality and efficiency of their systems in these areas as well as measures to ensure appropriate implementation of this Decision. Special attention should be given to strict return policy. Italy and Greece shall fully implement this roadmap.

Amendment 153 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. If Italy or Greece does not comply with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may decide to suspend this Decision with regard to that Member State for a period of up to three months. The Commission may decide once to extend such suspension for a further period of up to three months.deleted

Amendment 154 #

Amendment 155 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. If Italy or Greece does not comply with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may decide to suspend this Decision with regard to that Member State ~~for a period of up to three months. The Commission may decide once to extend such suspension for a further period of up to three months~~as many times as is necessary.

Amendment 156 #

Pál CSÁKY, Artis PABRIKS

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. If Italy or Greece does not comply with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may decide to suspend this Decision with regard to that Member State for a period of up to three months. The Commission may decide ~~once to~~to further extend such suspension for a ~~further~~dditional period of up to three months, until the obligation referred to in paragraph 1 is met.

Amendment 157 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. If Italy or Greece does not comply with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may decide, having given the State concerned the opportunity to present its views, to suspend this Decision with regard to that Member State for a period of up to three months. The Commission may decide once to extend such suspension for a further period of up to three months. Or. {EN}en

Amendment 158 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. If Italy or Greece does not comply with the obligation referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission ~~may decide to~~ suspends this Decision with regard to that Member State for a period of ~~up to three~~six months. The Commission ~~may decide once to~~ extends such suspension for a further period of ~~up to three months~~six months as many times as necessary.

Amendment 159 #

Artis PABRIKS

Proposal for a decision
Article 9

In the event of an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries in a Member State of relocation, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State concerned, pursuant to Article 78(3) of the Treaty. Such measures may in addition include, where appropriate, a suspension of the obligations of that Member State provided for in this Decision.

Amendment 160 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 11

Italy and Greece shall report to the Council and the Commission on the implementation of this Decision, including on the roadmaps referred to in Article 8, every t~~hree~~wo months.

Amendment 161 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Article 11

Italy and Greece shall report to the Council and the Commission on the implementation of this Decision, including on the roadmaps referred to in Article 8, every ~~three~~six months.

Amendment 162 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 11

Italy and Greece shall report to the Council and the Commission on the implementation and the proper use of the funds received in the framework of this Decision, including on the roadmaps referred to in Article 8, every three months.

Amendment 163 #

Laura FERRARA

Proposal for a decision
Article 11

Italy and Greece shall report to the Council and the Commission on the implementation of this Decision, including on the roadmaps referred to in Article 8, every three months. Member States in which the asylum seekers are relocated ensure that the management of the centres and reception facilities is subject to periodic reporting to the competent authorities. This should include at least the following elements: name of the managing institution, the overall number of staff members, the number of asylum seekers hosted, quantity and quality of the services provided, costs incurred in the management of the reception centres.

Amendment 164 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Louis MICHEL, Angelika MLINAR, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

1a. Member States should provide EASO with a list of profession available identifying and matching both Member States and applicants needs in the labour market.

Amendment 165 #

Gérard DEPREZ, Sophia IN 'T VELD, Louis MICHEL, Angelika MLINAR, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Proposal for a decision
Article 11 a (new)

Article 11a Evaluation By July 2016 the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council a mid-term evaluation on the application of this Decision and, where appropriate, shall propose the necessary recommendations for a permanent emergency relocation mechanism, based on Article 78(2) TFEU that will be triggered when a clearly defined threshold is surpassed in a Member State, including in perspective of the announced Dublin fitness check. By…* the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council a final evaluation report on the application of this Decision. Member States shall forward to the Commission all information appropriate for the preparation of that report in due time. ____________ * OJ: please insert the date: 30 months after the entry into force of this Decision.

Amendment 166 #

Proposal for a decision
Article 11 a (new)

Article 11a By July 2016 the Commission, with the support of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights, shall present an impact assessment on the respect of the Fundamental Rights at the borders, in particular during the finger printing process.

Amendment 27 #

Louis MICHEL, Angelika MLINAR, Cecilia WIKSTRÖM, Sophia IN 'T VELD

Proposal for a decision
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental rights, in particular Chapter I and Articles 18 and 19,

Amendment 28 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) In accordance with Article 78 (2) of the Treaty the Commission should propose to the European Parliament and the Council by the end of 2015 a permanent mechanism for administrating emergency measures in the case that one or more Member States are faced with an emergency situation, characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries to the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned.

Amendment 29 #

(3) The recent crisis situation in the Mediterranean prompted the Union institutions to ~~immediately acknowledge~~acknowledge with great delay the exceptional migratory flows in this region and call for concrete measures of solidarity towards the frontline Member States. In particular, at a joint meeting of Foreign and Interior Ministers on 20 April 2015, the European Commission presented an inadequate ten-point plan of immediate actions to be taken in response to this crisis, including a commitment to consider options for an emergency relocation mechanism.

Amendment 30 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 3

(3) The recent crisis situation in the Mediterranean prompted the Union institutions to immediately acknowledge the exceptional migratory flows in this region and call for concrete measures of solidarity towards the frontline Member States. In particular, at a joint meeting of Foreign and Interior Ministers on 20 April 2015, the European Commission presented a ten-point plan of immediate actions to be taken in response to this crisis, including a commitment to consider options for an emergency relocation mechanism. Considering the magnitude of economic and humanitarian migration, the proposed ERS does not offer an effective or sustainable solution to this problem.

Amendment 31 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 3 a (new)

(3a) When drafting the permanent mechanism for relocation under Article 78 (2) of the Treaty as an emergency measure, when one or more Member States are faced with an emergency situation, the Commission should provide a definition of the terms "sudden inflow of nationals of third countries" and "exceptional migratory pressure".

Amendment 32 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 4 a (new)

(4a) In its conclusions of 26 June 2015, the European Council stated that Europe needs a balanced an geographically comprehensive approach to migration, based on solidarity and responsibility identifying three key dimensions which must be advanced in parallel: relocation/resettlement, return/readmission/reintegration and cooperation with countries of origin and transit.

Amendment 33 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 5

(5) In its resolution of 28 April 2015, the European Parliament reiterated the need for the Union to base its response to the latest tragedies in the Mediterranean on solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility and to step up its efforts in this area towards Member States which receive the highest number of refugees and applicants for international protection in either absolute or proportional terms due to the criteria for defining the responsible Member-State to examine an asylum request set in Dublin Regulations.

Amendment 34 #

Carlos COELHO, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Barbara MATERA

Proposal for a decision
Recital 5

(5) In its resolution of 28 April 2015, the European Parliament reiterated the need for the Union to base its response to the latest tragedies in the Mediterranean on solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility and to step up its efforts in this area towards Member States which receive the highest number of refugees and applicants for international protection in either absolute or proportional terms and called for a binding mechanism of distribution of refugees among Member States.

Amendment 35 #

Pál CSÁKY, Artis PABRIKS, Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Proposal for a decision
Recital 5 a (new)

(5a) Having regard to the Council Conclusions of 25-26 June 2015, this emergency mechanism should encourage greater solidarity and participation among all Member States.

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 5 a (new)

(5a) Whereas at its meetings of 25 and 26 June 2015, the European Council decided, inter alia, that three key dimensions should be advanced in parallel: relocation/ resettlement, return/ readmission/ reintegration and cooperation with countries of origin and transit. Whereas the European Council agreed in particular, in the light of the current emergency situation and the commitment to reinforce solidarity and responsibility, on the temporary and exceptional relocation over two years from Italy and Greece to other Member States of 40 000 persons in clear need of international protection. Whereas Member States should agree on binding quota for the distribution of such persons, reflecting the specific situations of Member States.

Amendment 37 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 6

(6) ~~Several~~The Member States wein South and South-eastern Europe on the external borders of the EU are confronted with a significant increase in the total number of migrants, including applicants for international protection, arriving on their territories ~~in 2014 and some continue to be so in the first months of~~since 20151. Emergency financial assistance by the European Commission and operational support by EASO were provided to several Member States to help them cope with this increase.

Amendment 38 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7

(7) Among the Member States witnessing situations of particular pressure and in light of the recent tragic events in the Mediterranean, Italy and Greece in particular have experienced unprecedented flows of migrants, including applicants for international protection who are in clear need of international protection, arriving on their territories, generating a significant pressure on their migration and asylum systems. However, other Member States within the EU are also experiencing large increases in the number asylum seekers received.

Amendment 39 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7

(7) Among the Member States witnessing situations of particular pressure in South and South-eastern Europe and in light of the recent tragic events in the Mediterranean, Italy and Greece in particular ~~hav~~are experienceding unprecedented flows of migrants, including applicants for international protection who are in clear need of international protection, arriving on their territories, generating a significant pressure on their migration and asylum systems.

Amendment 40 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7

(7) Among the Member States witnessing situations of particular pressure and in light of the recent tragic events in the Mediterranean, Italy and Greece in particular have experienced unprecedented flows of migrants, including applicants for international protection who are in clear need of international protection, arriving on their territories, generating a significant pressure on their migration and asylum systems, indicating thus the negative impact of the Dublin Regulation for the first country of entry into the EU, which regrettably has not yet led to the suspension of this regulation or at least the removal of the reference to the first country of entry into the EU.

Amendment 41 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7

(7) Among the Member States witnessing situations of particular pressure and in light of the recent tragic events in the Mediterranean, Italy and Greece in particular have experienced unprecedented flows of migrants, including applicants for international protection who are in clear need of international protection, arriving on their territories, generating a significant pressure on their migration and asylum systems. However, many irregular migrants and asylum seekers flee poverty in their home countries and do not fulfil the criteria of a refugee.

Amendment 42 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7 a (new)

(7a) The expert forecast shows an increased migratory pressure in a short- and mid-term perspective on the external maritime and land borders of the EU.

Amendment 43 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7 b (new)

(7b) The financial, administrative and technical capacity in the Member States on the external borders of the EU is almost depleted and this impedes the management of the migratory flows.

Amendment 44 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Rachida DATI, Miriam DALLI, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Barbara MATERA, Luigi MORGANO, Alessandra MUSSOLINI

Proposal for a decision
Recital 7 a (new)

(7a) An unprecedented migratory pressure affects severely Hungary, where the number of illegal border crossings and of asylum applications reached the number of 61.000 by the end of June representing an insurmountable pressure on the Hungarian infrastructure.

Amendment 45 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 8

(8) According to data of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex), the Central and Eastern Mediterranean route were the main areas for irregular border crossing into the Union in 2014. In 2014, more than 170 000 migrants arrived in Italy alone in an irregular manner, representing an increase of 277% compared to 2013, including more than 26.100 children, of whom around 13.000 were unaccompanied (7.6% of the total migrants arrived). A steady increase was also witnessed by Greece with more than 50 000 irregular migrants reaching the country, representing an increase of 153% compared to 2013. Statistics for the first months of 2015 confirm this clear trend in respect of Italy. In addition, Greece has faced in the first months of 2015 a sharp increase in the number of irregular border crossings, corresponding to more than 50% of the total number of irregular border crossings in 2014 (almost 28 000 in the first four months of 2015 in comparison to a total number of almost 55 000 in 2014). A significant proportion of the total number of irregular migrants detected in these two regions included migrants of nationalities which, based on the Eurostat data, meet a high Union level recognition rate (in 2014, the Syrians and the Eritreans, for which the Union recognition rate is more than 75%, represented more than 40% of the irregular migrants in Italy and more than 50% of them in Greece). According to Eurostat, 30 505 Syrians were found to be irregularly present in Greece in 2014 compared to 8 220 in 2013.

Amendment 46 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Ska KELLER, Angelika MLINAR

Proposal for a decision
Recital 8

(8) According to data of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex), the Central and Eastern Mediterranean route were the main areas for irregular border crossing into the Union in 2014. In 2014, more than 170 000 migrants arrived in Italy alone in an irregular manner, representing an increase of 277% compared to 2013, including more than 26100 children, of whom around 13000 were unaccompanied. A steady increase was also witnessed by Greece with more than 50 000 irregular migrants reaching the country, representing an increase of 153% compared to 2013. Statistics for the first months of 2015 confirm this clear trend in respect of Italy. In addition, Greece has faced in the first months of 2015 a sharp increase in the number of irregular border crossings, corresponding to more than 50% of the total number of irregular border crossings in 2014 (almost 28 000 in the first four months of 2015 in comparison to a total number of almost 55 000 in 2014). A significant proportion of the total number of irregular migrants detected in these two regions included migrants of nationalities which, based on the Eurostat data, meet a high Union level recognition rate (in 2014, the Syrians and the Eritreans, for which the Union recognition rate is more than 75%, represented more than 40% of the irregular migrants in Italy and more than 50% of them in Greece). According to Eurostat, 30 505 Syrians were found to be irregularly present in Greece in 2014 compared to 8 220 in 2013.

Amendment 47 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 8

(8) According to data of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex), the Central and Eastern Mediterranean route were the main areas for irregular border crossing into the Union in 2014. In 2014, more than 170 000 migrants arrived in Italy alone in an irregular manner, representing an increase of 277% compared to 2013, including more than 26100 children, of whom around 13000 were unaccompanied (7.6% of the total migrants arrived). A steady increase was also witnessed by Greece with more than 50 000 irregular migrants reaching the country, representing an increase of 153% compared to 2013. Statistics for the first months of 2015 confirm this clear trend in respect of Italy. From January to June 2015 Italy witnessed a 5% increase of irregular border crossings as compared to the same period in the previous year. In addition, Greece has faced in the first months of 2015 a sharp increase in the number of irregular border crossings, corresponding to a more than ~~50% of the total number of irregular border crossings in 2014 (almost 28 000 in the first four months of 2015~~six-fold increase in comparison with the same period in the previous year and nearly a 140% increase compared to the previous year as a whole (76 293 from January to June 2015, according to data by Frontex, in comparison to a total number of almost 55 000 in 2014). A significant proportion of the total number of irregular migrants detected in these two regions included migrants of nationalities which, based on the Eurostat data, meet a high Union level recognition rate (in 2014, the Syrians and the Eritreans, for which the Union recognition rate is more than 75%, represented more than 40% of the irregular migrants in Italy and more than 50% of them in Greece; from January to June 2015 Syrians and Eritreans represented 30% of arrivals to Italy and nearly 60% to Greece). According to Eurostat, 30 505 Syrians were found to be irregularly present in Greece in 2014 compared to 8 220 in 2013.

Amendment 48 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 8

(8) According to data of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex), the Central and Eastern Mediterranean route were the main areas for irregular border crossing into the Union in 2014. In 2014, more than 170 000 migrants arrived in Italy alone in an irregular manner, representing an increase of 277% compared to 2013. A steady increase was also witnessed by Greece with more than 50 000 irregular migrants reaching the country, representing an increase of 153% compared to 2013. Statistics for the first months of 2015 confirm this clear trend in respect of Italy. ~~In addition, Greece has faced~~According to UNHCR 67 5000 irregular migrants arrived in Italy by sea between January and 29 June 2015. In addition, in the first ~~months~~half of 2015 Greece has faced a sharp increase in the number of irregular border crossings, corresponding to ~~more than 50% of the total number of irregular border crossings in 2014 (almost 28 000 in the first four months of 2015~~a 124% increase compared to the previous year as a whole (68 000 from January to 26 June 2015 according to UNHCR data, in comparison to a total number of almost 55 000 in 2014). A significant proportion of the total number of irregular migrants detected in these two ~~region~~Member States included migrants of nationalities which, based on the Eurostat data, meet a high Union level recognition rate (in 2014, the Syrians and the Eritreans, for which the Union recognition rate is more than 75%, represented more than 40% of the irregular migrants in Italy and more than 50% of them in Greece; from January to end- June 2015 Syrians and Eritreans represented 30% of the arrivals to Italy and 57% to Greece). According to Eurostat, 30 505 Syrians were found to be irregularly present in Greece in 2014 compared to 8 220 in 2013.

Amendment 49 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 10

(10) According to Frontex data, another important migration route into the Union in 2014 was the Western Balkan route with 43 357 irregular border crossings. However, the majority of migrants using the Balkan route are not prima facie in need of international protection~~, with 51% of the arrivals being made up only of Kosovars~~.

Amendment 50 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 10

(10) According to Frontex data, another important migration route into the Union since 20141 was the Western Balkan route ~~with 43 357 irregular border crossings. However, the majority of migrants using the Balkan route are not prima facie in need of international~~, the migration from the Middle East and North Africa, in particular from Syria and Afghanistan through the land borders of Hungary and the borders of Turkey with Greece and Bulgaria. The migratory flow through these borders is increasing pro~~tec~~portion~~, with 51% of the arrivals being made up only of Kosovars.~~ ally, regardless of the measures taken in fighting trafficking and smuggling of migrants.

Amendment 51 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 10

(10) According to Frontex data, another important migration route into the Union in 2014 was the Western Balkan route with 43 357 irregular border crossings. ~~However,~~While the majority of migrants using the Balkan route are not prima facie in need of international protection, with 51% of the arrivals being made up only of Kosovars, detection of Syrians have increased significantly in 2014 compared to 2013 from 2 706 to 12 536 and Afghans from 4 065 to 10 963.

Amendment 52 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 10

(10) According to Frontex data, another important migration route into the Union in 2014 was the Western Balkan route with 43 357 irregular border crossings. ~~However, t~~The majority of migrants using the Balkan route awere not prima facie in need of international protection~~, with~~ as in 2014 51% of the arrivals were being made up only of Kosovars. However, in 2015 only in Hungary the number of illegal border crossings and of asylum applications reached the number of 61.000 by the end of June, the majority of applicants coming from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Amendment 53 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 12

(12) Due to the on-going instability and conflicts in the immediate neighbourhood of Italy and Greece, it is very likely that a significant and increased pressure will continue to be put on their migration and asylum systems~~, with a significant part of the migrants who may be in need of international protection~~. This demonstrates the critical need to show solidarity towards Italy and Greece and to complement the actions taken so far to support them with provisional measures in the area of international protection.

Amendment 54 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 12 a (new)

(12a) With regards of the expectations for an increased migratory pressure on other Member States on the external borders of the EU, the Commission should guarantee a display of solidarity through drawing up and implementation of a permanent mechanism for relocation under Article 78 (2) of the Treaty.

Amendment 55 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 13

(13) At the same time, Italy and Greece should provide structural solutions to address the shortcomings in the functioning of their asylum and migration systems. The measures laid down in this Decision should therefore go hand in hand with the establishment by Italy and Greece of a solid and strategic framework for responding to the crisis situation and intensifying the ongoing reform process in these areas. In this respect, Italy and Greece should each within one month of entry into force of this Decision, present a roadmap to the Commission which should include adequate measures in the area of asylum, in particular with regard to creating sufficient capacity in open reception accommodation for asylum seekers and identification of particularly vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied children, first reception, and return enhancing the capacity, quality and efficiency of their systems in these areas, as well as measures to ensure appropriate implementation of this Decision with a view to enable them to better cope, after the end of the applicability of this decision, with a possible increased inflow of migrants on their territories.

Amendment 56 #

Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI

Proposal for a decision
Recital 13

(13) At the same time, Italy and Greece should provide structural solutions to address the shortcomings in the functioning of their asylum and migration systems. The measures laid down in this Decision should therefore go hand in hand with the establishment by Italy and Greece of a solid and strategic framework for responding to the crisis situation and intensifying the ongoing reform process in these areas. In this respect, Italy and Greece should each within one month of entry into force of this Decision, present a roadmap to the Commission which should include adequate measures in the area of asylum~~, first~~ and reception ~~and return~~, enhancing the capacity, quality and efficiency of their systems in these areas, as well as measures to ensure appropriate implementation of this Decision with a view to enable them to better cope, after the end of the applicability of this decision, with a possible increased inflow of migrants on their territories.

Amendment 57 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 13 a (new)

(13a) Furthermore calls for a rapid and full transposition and effective implementation of the Common European Asylum System by all participating Member States, thereby ensuring common European standards, including reception conditions for asylum seekers and respect for fundamental rights, as envisaged under existing legislation.

Amendment 58 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 14

(14) The Commission should be entrusted with the power to suspend, where appropriate, the application of this Decision for a limited amount of time where Italy or Greece does not respect their commitments in this regard.deleted

Amendment 59 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 15

(15) IConsidering the on-going instability and conflicts in the immediate neighbourhood of the European Union and the changing nature of migratory flows to take into account that if a Member State other than Italy or Greece should be confronted with a similar emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State concerned, in line with Article 78(3) of the Treaty. Such measures may include, where appropriate, a suspension of the obligations of that Member State provided for in this Decision.

Amendment 60 #

Mariya GABRIEL

Proposal for a decision
Recital 15

(15) If a Member State other than Italy or Greece should be confronted with a similar emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State concerned, in line with Article 78(3) of the Treaty. Such measures may include, where appropriate, a suspension of the obligations of that Member State provided for in this Decision. Migration routes are extremely flexible and can change rapidly. In 2015, the eastern Mediterranean route from Turkey into Greece has surpassed the central Mediterranean route from North Africa to Italy as the main source of arrivals by sea. The route of the Black Sea from Turkey also registered a 193 % increase in the number of detections of illegal border-crossing in 2014. The Commission must thus closely monitor the situation on a permanent basis so as to introduce the necessary changes as regards Member States' obligation and to adapt to new circumstances.

Amendment 61 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 16

(16) In line with Article 78(3) of the Treaty, the measures envisaged for the benefit of Italy and Greece should be of a provisional nature. A period of 24 months is reasonable in view of ensuring that the measures provided for in this Decision have a real impact in respect of supporting Italy and Greece to deal with the significant migration flows on their territories.

Amendment 62 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 15 a (new)

(15a) Whereas the proposal for emergency relocation mechanism is only one part of a holistic European approach to migration, Whereas it is important to stress that all other parts of the European Agenda on Migration should be implemented and enforced, including addressing the root causes of migration, an effective return policy, fighting human smuggling and trafficking and increased cooperation with third countries of origin and transfer.

Amendment 63 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 15 a (new)

(15a) The temporary measures for relocation by the Commission are only one part of the future holistic policy on migration by creating legal ways for migration, integration programmes, cooperation with third countries and fighting trafficking.

Amendment 64 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 16

Amendment 65 #

Caterina CHINNICI, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Rachida DATI, Miriam DALLI, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Filiz HYUSMENOVA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Barbara MATERA, Luigi MORGANO, Alessandra MUSSOLINI

Proposal for a decision
Recital 16 a (new)

(16a) In accordance with Article 78(2) of the Treaty the Commission should come up with a proposal for a permanent mechanism for relocation with strictly defined criteria.

Amendment 66 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 17

(17) The measures foreseen in this Decision entail a temporary derogation from the criterion laid down in Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the procedural steps, including the time limits, laid down in Articles 21, 22 and 29 of that Regulation. Child rights principles and the best interest of the Child should be the primary consideration in all procedures put in place.

Amendment 67 #

Marek JUREK, Kazimierz Michał UJAZDOWSKI

Proposal for a decision
Recital 17 a (new)

(17a) The measures foreseen in this Decision entail a temporary derogation from the provisions related to the required consent of applicants laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, Article 17(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the Dublin Regulation and Article 5 of the Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).

Amendment 68 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 17 a (new)

(17a) Relocating countries should define their own criteria for selecting people for relocation. Countries from which refugees will be resettled, should allow hosting countries practical assistance in the selection and relocation of displaced persons (complying with recital 25) and in preparing for their relocation.

Amendment 69 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 18

(18) A choice had to be made in respect of the criteria to be applied when deciding which and how many applicants are to be relocated from Italy and Greece. A clear and workable system is envisaged based on a threshold of the average rate at Union level of decisions granting international protection in the procedures at first instance as defined by Eurostat out of the total number at Union level of decisions on asylum applications for international protection taken at first instance, based on the latest available statistics. On the one hand, this threshold would have to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that all applicants who are most likely in need of international protection would be in a position to fully and swiftly enjoy their protection rights in the Member State of relocation. On the other hand, it would prevent, to the maximum extent possible, applicants who are likely to receive a negative decision to their application from being relocated to another Member State and therefore prolong unduly their stay in the Union. Based on Eurostat data for 2014 first instance decisions, a threshold of 75%, which corresponds in that year to decisions on applications for Syrians and Eritreans, should be used in this Decision. To take into account the changing nature of migratory flows, the targeted group of beneficiaries for relocation should be assessed on a quarterly basis.

Amendment 70 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 18

(18) A choice had to be made in respect of the criteria to be applied when deciding which and how many applicants are to be relocated from Italy and Greece. A ~~clear and workable~~ system is envisaged based on a threshold of the average rate at Union level of decisions granting international protection in the procedures at first instance as defined by Eurostat out of the total number at Union level of decisions on asylum applications for international protection taken at first instance, based on the latest available statistics. On the one hand, this threshold would have to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that all applicants who are most likely in need of international protection would be in a position to fully and swiftly enjoy their protection rights in the Member State of relocation. On the other hand, it would prevent, to the maximum extent possible, applicants who are likely to receive a negative decision to their application from being relocated to another Member State and therefore prolong unduly their stay in the Union. Based on Eurostat data for 2014 first instance decisions, a threshold of 75%, which corresponds in that year to decisions on applications for Syrians and Eritreans, should be used in this Decision.

Amendment 71 #

Monika HOHLMEIER, Jeroen LENAERS, Roberta METSOLA

Proposal for a decision
Recital 18 a (new)

(18a) In accordance with Article 78(2) of the Treaty the Commission should propose criteria to determine the applicants who will be relocated, as well as the Member States for relocation.

Amendment 72 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 19

(19) The provisional emergency measures are intended to set up a fair and equitable relocation mechanism, reflecting the specific situation of Member States, to relieve the significant asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, in particular by relocating an important number of applicants in clear need of international protection who have arrived in the territory of Italy and Greece following the date on which this Decision becomes applicable. Based on the overall number of third- country nationals who have entered irregularly Italy and Greece in 2014 and the number of those who are in clear need of international protection, a total of 40 000 applicants in clear need of international protection should be relocated from Italy and Greece. This number corresponds to approximately 40% of the total number of third country nationals in clear need of international protection who have entered irregularly in Italy and Greece in 2014. Thus, the relocation measure proposed in this Decision constitutes fair burden sharing between Italy and Greece on the one hand and the other Member States on the other hand. Based on the same overall available figures in 2014 and in the first four months of 2015 in Italy compared to Greece, 60% of these applicants should be relocated from Italy and 40% from Greece. These provisional emergency measures are intended to relieve the significant asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, but are also an important test case with a view to the upcoming legislative proposal on a permanent emergency relocation scheme based on Article 78(2) TFEU.

Amendment 73 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 19

(19) The provisional measures are intended to relieve the significant asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, in particular by relocating an important number of applicants in clear need of international protection who have arrived in the territory of Italy and Greece following the date on which this Decision becomes applicable. Based on the overall number of third- country nationals who have entered irregularly Italy and Greece since January 2014 and the number of those who are in clear need of international protection, a total of 4075 000 applicants in clear need of international protection should be relocated from Italy and Greece. This number corresponds to approximately 460% of the total number of third country nationals in clear need of international protection who have entered irregularly in Italy and Greece since January 2014. Thus, the relocation measure proposed in this Decision constitutes fair burden sharing between Italy and Greece on the one hand and the other Member States on the other hand. Based on the ~~same overall~~ available figures since 2014 and ~~in the first four months of 2015 in Italy compared to Greece~~taking into account the shift since 2015 of refugee flows to Greece and the actual reception capacity in each country, 650% of these applicants should be relocated from Italy and 450% from Greece.

Amendment 74 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 19

(19) The provisional measures are intended to relieve the significant asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, in particular by relocating an important number of applicants in clear need of international protection who have arrived in the territory of Italy and Greece following the date on which this Decision becomes applicable. Based on the overall number of third- country nationals who have entered irregularly Italy and Greece in 2014 and the number of those who are in clear need of international protection, a total of 40 000 applicants in clear need of international protection should be relocated from Italy and Greece. This number corresponds to approximately 40% of the total number of third country nationals in clear need of international protection who have entered irregularly in Italy and Greece in 2014. Thus, the relocation measure proposed in this Decision constitutes fair ~~burden~~ sharing of responsibility between Italy and Greece on the one hand and the other Member States on the other hand. Based on the same overall available figures in 2014 and in the first four months of 2015 in Italy compared to Greece, 60% of these applicants should be relocated from Italy and 40% from Greece.

Amendment 75 #

Marek JUREK, Kazimierz Michał UJAZDOWSKI

Proposal for a decision
Recital 19

(19) The provisional measures are intended to relieve the significant and unmanageable asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, in particular by relocating a~~n import~~ significant number of applicants in clear need of international protection who have arrived in the territory of Italy and Greece following the date on which this Decision becomes applicable. Based on the overall number of third- country nationals who have entered irregularly Italy and Greece since January 2014 and the number of those who are in clear need of international protection, a total of 450 000 applicants in clear need of international protection should be urgently relocated from Italy and Greece. This number corresponds to approximately 40% of the total number of third country nationals in clear need of international protection who have entered irregularly in Italy and Greece since January 2014. Thus, the relocation measure proposed in this Decision constitutes fair burden sharing between Italy and Greece on the one hand and the other Member States on the other hand, on the basis of the solidarity principle. Based on the same overall available figures in 2014 and in the first four months of 2015 in Italy compared to Greece, 60% of these applicants should be relocated from Italy and 40% from Greece.

Amendment 76 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 19

(19) The provisional measures are intended to relieve the significant asylum pressure from Italy and Greece, in particular by relocating an important number of applicants in clear need of international protection who have arrived in the territory of Italy and Greece following the date on which this Decision becomes applicable. Based on the overall number of third- country nationals who have entered irregularly Italy and Greece in 2014 and the number of those who are in clear need of international protection, a total of 420 000 applicants in clear need of international protection should be relocated from Italy and Greece. This number corresponds to approximately 40% of the total number of third country nationals in clear need of international protection who have entered irregularly in Italy and Greece in 2014. Thus, the relocation measure proposed in this Decision constitutes fair burden sharing between Italy and Greece on the one hand and the other Member States on the other hand. Based on the same overall available figures in 2014 and in the first four months of 2015 in Italy compared to Greece, 60% of these applicants should be relocated from Italy and 40% from Greece.

Amendment 77 #

Helga STEVENS

Proposal for a decision
Recital 20

(20) In line with the Annex to the Communication from the Commission on the European Agenda on Migration , the proposed distribution key should be based on a) the size of the population ~~(40% weighting)~~, b) the total of the GDP ~~(40% weighting)~~, c) the average number of spontaneous asylum applications and the number of resettled refugees, including by use of national humanitarian visas, per one million inhabitants over the period 2010- 201~~4 (10% weighting)~~5 and d) the unemployment rate ~~(10%~~, with a weighting of minimum 25% for c). The distribution keys set out in Annex I and Annex II of this Decision take into account the fact that the Member States from which relocation will take place should not themselves contribute as a Member State of relocation.

Amendment 78 #

Artis PABRIKS

Proposal for a decision
Recital 20

(20) In line with the Annex to the Communication from the Commission on the European Agenda on Migration1, the proposed distribution key should be based on a) the size of the population (40% weighting), b) the total of the GDP (40% weighting), c) the average number of spontaneous asylum applications and the number of resettled refugees per one million inhabitants over the period 2010- 2014 (10% weighting) and d) the unemployment rate (10% weighting). In addition, taking into account the complexity of the issue, other elements of the distribution key should include Member State specific conditions, such as the number of migrants already in the Member State and historic immigration. The distribution keys set out in Annex I and Annex II of this Decision take into account the fact that the Member States from which relocation will take place should not themselves contribute as a Member State of relocation. 1 COM (2015) 240 final.

Amendment 79 #

Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Cornelia ERNST, Barbara SPINELLI, Marie-Christine VERGIAT

Proposal for a decision
Recital 20 a (new)

(20a) When drafting the permanent mechanism for relocation under Article 78(2) of the Treaty, the Commission should include the territory of a Member State as a criterion for determining the distribution key of migrants.

Amendment 80 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 21

(21) The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) set up by Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council1 provides support to ~~burden-sharing~~the fair sharing of responsibility operations agreed between Member States and is open to new policy developments in that field. Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 foresees the possibility for Member States to implement actions related to the transfer of applicants for international protection as part of their national programmes, while Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 foresees the possibility of a lump sum of EUR 6 000 for the transfer of beneficiaries of international protection from another Member State. 1 Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, amending Council Decision 2008/381/EC and repealing Decisions No 573/2007/EC and No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision 2007/435/EC (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p.168).

Amendment 81 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 21 a (new)

(21a) The Commission should control the spending of the sum of EUR 6000 for the relocation of each applicant.

Amendment 82 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 24

(24) National security and public order should be taken into consideration throughout the relocation procedure~~, until the transfer of the applicant is implemented~~.

Amendment 83 #

Proposal for a decision
Recital 24

(24) NGuaranteeing the national security and public order ~~should be taken into consideration~~in Greece and Italy, as well as in all other Member States is of an utmost importance throughout the relocation procedure of the applicant, until the transfer of is implemented. It is essential to strengthen a~~pplicant is implemented~~nd further develop the cooperation between the European and national law enforcement agencies when screening and identifying the applicants.

Amendment 84 #