Activites

• 2015/09/15 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Decision 2015/1523
  • OJ L 239 15.09.2015, p. 0146
• #3408
• 2015/09/14 Council Meeting
• 2015/09/14 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2015/09/14 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
• 2015/09/09 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T8-0306/2015 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by 498 votes to 158 with 37 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece. Parliament approved the Commission proposal subject to the following amendments: Binding measures: in line with Article 78(3) and Article 80 of the Treaty, Parliament wanted the solidarity measures envisaged in the Decision to be binding. It asked for binding quota for the distribution of person sin clear need of international protection throughout Member States. Distribution key: in order 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, Parliament proposed that an initial total of 110 000 asylum seekers should be relocated from Greece and Italy over a two-year period (40 000 from Italy and 70 000 from Greece.) However, a further increase of relocation places should be considered, if necessary, to adapt to rapidly changing refugee flows and trends. Any proposal for a permanent emergency relocation mechanism must be based on a more substantial contribution to solidarity and responsibility-sharing among Member States, including a significant increase in the number of available relocation places. It should be built on clearly defined criteria, including on sudden inflow of nationals of third countries and exceptional asylum pressure, allowing for its triggering on the basis of transparent and objective indicators. Taking account of applicants’ preferences and of Member States: based on the lessons learned from the pilot project on relocation from Malta (EUREMA), Parliament asked that applicants be given the opportunity to express their preferences. They should rank Member States by order of preference and support their preferences by elements such as: family ties in a broad sense; social ties such as ties to ethnic and cultural communities, and cultural ties to the preferred Member State such as language skills, former stay in a Member State or former study or work relations with companies or organisations of that Member State. While applicants do not have a right to choose the Member State of their relocation, there must be taken into account their needs, preferences and specific qualifications that could be relevant for the integration of applicants into the labour market of the Member State of relocation. Relocation procedure: when deciding which applicants should be relocated, special attention should be given to unaccompanied minors. Parliament asked that Member States provide information about the available capacity for reception of migrants.  Italy and Greece shall, with the assistance of EASO, provide applicants with information, in a language that they understand about the Member States involved in the emergency relocation. During the initial processing applicants shall be asked to rank Member States by order of preferences and to support their preference. The person concerned shall be advised of the Member State of relocation in a comprehensive manner and in a language that the applicant understands or, if the applicant’s preferences are not taken into account, of the reasons for that decision. In principle, the applicant must give his or her consent to the relocation to a Member State. Operational support for Italy and Greece: Parliament specified support must include the initial processing of the applications, including the identification of vulnerabilities and preferences, for the purpose of identifying potential applicants for relocation and the screening of applicants, including their clear identification, fingerprinting and registration of the applications for international protection. The transfer costs to the Member State of relocation should not be an additional burden to Greece and Italy. Evaluation: by July 2016 the Commission shall submit a mid-term evaluation on the application of the Decision and, where appropriate, shall propose the necessary recommendations for a permanent relocation mechanism, including in perspective of the announced Dublin fitness check. The Commission shall submit a final evaluation report on the application of the Decision 30 months after its entry into force. Statement by the European Parliament: Parliament urges the Commission to table a legislative proposal on a permanent relocation scheme based on Article 78(2) and Article 80 by the end of 2015, as announced by the Commission in its European Agenda on Migration. Parliament reserves its right to prepare a legislative own-initiative report in case the Commission does not come forward with such a legislative proposal in due time.

• 2015/09/08 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2015/07/29 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A8-0245/2015 summary

    The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Ska KELLER (Greens/EFA, DE) on the proposal for a Council decision establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece. The committee approved the Commission proposal subject to the following amendments: Binding measures: this Decision establishes binding provisional emergency measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece. Taking account of applicants’ preferences and of Member States: based on the lessons learned from the pilot project on relocation from Malta (EUREMA), Members stated that expectations and preferences should be taken into account to the extent possible. Member States should support their preferences by aspects such as: family ties, social ties such as ties to ethnic and cultural communities, cultural ties to the preferred Member State such as language skills, former stay in a Member State or former study or work relations with companies or organisations of that Member State. Distribution key: in order 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, an initial total of 40 000 applicants shall be relocated from Italy and Greece. A further increase shall be considered, if necessary, to adapt to rapidly changing refugee flows. By six months after the entry into force of this Decision, the Commission shall evaluate the respective share of persons to be relocated from Italy and Greece with a view to adapting it to changing refugee flows, on basis of the latest available Frontex data. Relocation procedure: for the implementation of all aspects of the relocation procedure, Members considered that rather than sending liaison officers for identifying applicants for relocation by individual Member States, Member States should provide national experts to European Asylum Support Office to assist Italy and Greece in the relocation measures in a coordinated manner. Particular attention should be given to unaccompanied minors in the framework of this procedure. Information to applicants: Member States shall provide information about the available capacity for reception of migrants. Italy and Greece shall, with the assistance of EASO, provide applicants with information, in a language that they understand or are reasonably supposed to understand, about the Member States involved in the emergency relocation. During the initial processing applicants shall be asked to rank Member States by order of preferences and to support their preference. The person concerned shall be informed of the Member State of relocation in a comprehensive manner and in a language that the applicant understands or is reasonably supposed to understand or, if the applicant’s preferences are not taken into account, of the reasons for that decision. To further avoid secondary movements, applicants should be informed of the consequences of onward movement within the Member States. In principle, applicants should give their consent to be relocated to a Member State. Operational support to Italy and Greece: the support activities for the initial processing of the applications, including the identification of vulnerabilities and preferences, for the purpose of identifying potential applicants for relocation and the screening of applicants, including their clear identification, fingerprinting and registration of the applications for international protection. The transfer costs to the Member State of relocation should not be an additional burden to Greece and Italy. Evaluation: by July 2016, the Commission shall submit a mid-term evaluation on the application of this Decision and, where appropriate, shall propose the necessary recommendations for a permanent relocation mechanism, including in perspective of the announced Dublin fitness check. By 30 months after the date of entry into force of this decision, the Commission shall submit a final evaluation report on the application of this Decision. Statement by the European Parliament: the committee proposed annexing to the draft resolution a statement to clarify the following points: the European Parliament can accept Article 78 (3) TFEU as a legal basis only as an emergency measure, which will be followed by a proper legislative proposal to structurally deal with any future emergency situations; Article 78 (2) TFEU requiring the ordinary legislative procedure for measures for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an application for international protection jointly with Article 80, second sentence TFEU giving in its provisions effect to the principle of solidarity as expressed in Article 80, first sentence, should be the correct legal basis. The European Parliament urged the Commission to table a legislative proposal on a permanent relocation scheme based on Article 78(2) and Article 80 by the end of 2015. The European Parliament reserves its right to prepare a legislative own-initiative report in case the Commission does not come forward with such a legislative proposal in due time.

• 2015/07/16 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2015/06/24 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2015/05/27 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2015)0286 summary

    PURPOSE: to establish provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece in order to enable them to deal in an effective manner with the current significant inflow of third country nationals in their territories, putting their asylum systems under strain. PROPOSED ACT: Council Decision. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the Council adopts the act after consulting the European Parliament but without being obliged to follow its opinion BACKGROUND: in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Treaty, in the event of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt provisional measures to the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned. In accordance with Article 80 of the Treaty, the policies of the Union in the area of border checks, asylum and immigration and their implementation should be governed by the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between Member States. The European Agenda on Migration, the recent statement of the European Council of 23 April 2015 and the European Parliament Resolution presented on 29 April 2015 in the wake of the recent tragedies in the Mediterranean, all concur on the specific and urgent needs frontline Member States are confronted with and on the need to reinforce internal solidarity and propose concrete measures to provide support to the most affected Member States. Italy’s and Greece’s geographical situation, with the ongoing conflicts in the region of their immediate neighbourhood makes them more vulnerable than the other Member States in the immediate future with unprecedented flows of migrants expected to continue to reach their territories. 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 witnessed also by Greece with more than 50 000 irregular migrants reaching the country, representing an increase of 153% compared to 2013. In 2014, the Syrians and the Eritreans, for which the EU level recognition rate is more than 75%, represented more than 40% in Italy and more than 50% in Greece.  According to Eurostat, 64 625 persons applied for international protection in Italy in 2014, compared to 26 920 in 2013 (an increase of 143%). A lesser increase in the number of applications was witnessed by Greece with 9 430 applicants (an increase of 15%). As part of the immediate measures, the Commission announced that, by the end of May, it will propose a mechanism to trigger the emergency response system envisaged under Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The proposal will include a temporary distribution scheme for persons in clear need of international protection to ensure a fair and balanced participation of all Member States to this common effort. CONTENT: this proposal is presented as result of a prevailing crisis in the area of asylum in Italy and Greece. To prevent further deterioration of the asylum situation in these two countries and provide them with effective support, the Commission had to react rapidly and present promptly its proposal based on Article 78(3) of the Treaty in view of its swift adoption by the Council and implementation of the provisional measures to the benefit of Italy and Greece by the Member States. Provisional relocation measures: the provisional measures envisaged by this proposal relate first and foremost to the relocation of applicants for international protection (Syrians and Eritreans) who appear prima facie to be in clear need of international protection from Italy and Greece to the other Member States. The other Member States, defined in the proposal as the “Member States of relocation" become responsible for examining the application of the person to be relocated. It is therefore proposed to apply the provisional measures foreseen in this proposal for a period of 24 months from the entry into force of this Decision. Numerical targets: the proposal establishes a numerical target for the applicants to be relocated from Italy and Greece, namely 24 000 and 16 000 respectively and includes in its annexes two distribution keys which define the number of applicants that shall be relocated from Italy and Greece respectively to the other Member States. The total of 40 000 applicants that should be relocated from Italy and Greece corresponds to approximately 40% of the total number of persons in clear need of international protection who have entered irregularly in these two countries in 2014. Relocation procedure: the scope of the relocation procedure set out in this Decision is limited in two respects: (1)   this Decision shall only apply in respect of applicants who are, prima facie, in clear need of international protection (those applicants as those belonging to nationalities for which the EU average recognition rate as established by Eurostat is above 75%); (2)   this Decision shall only apply in respect of those applicants for whom Italy or Greece would in principle be the Member State responsible, in line with the take charge criteria defined in Regulation (EU) No 604/2013. The proposal sets out a simple relocation procedure, to ensure a quick transfer of the persons concerned to the Member State of relocation. Priority should be given to the vulnerable applicants. Further measures: in addition to relocalisation, the proposal: lays down other measures of support to be provided to Italy and Greece. In particular, the proposal envisages an increase in the support provided by other Member States to Italy and Greece under the coordination of EASO and other relevant Agencies; provides the obligation for Italy and Greece to present to the Commission a roadmap 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 a proper application of this Decision. The Commission may suspend, under certain circumstances, the application of this Decision; includes specific guarantees and obligations for the applicants who are subject to relocation to another Member State (the right to receive information on the relocation procedure, the right to be notified with the relocation decision which must specify the precise Member State of relocation and the right to be relocated with the family members in the same Member State of relocation). The proposal also recalls the obligation to give primary consideration to the best interests of the child when deciding the Member State of relocation. Lastly, the proposal recalls the possibility for the Council, based on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, to adopt provisional measures for the benefit of a Member State other than Italy or Greece which would be confronted with a similar emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries. BUDGETARY IMPACT: this proposal entails additional costs for the EU Budget for a total amount of EUR 240 000 000.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/', 'title': 'Migration and Home Affairs'}, AVRAMOPOULOS Dimitris

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2015)0286
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A8-0245/2015
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T8-0306/2015
• : Decision 2015/1523
• : OJ L 239 15.09.2015, p. 0146

History

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